1. Will China replace USA as the #1 country?
2. Does it make you happy?
with its current pace, in what, 30-40 years? i doubt that
>>61612018
Of course, in 30 to 50 years.
Will our grandchildren speak Mandarin and listen to cool Chinese tunes? Will they disregard everything American as naff grandpa stuff?
>>61611990
1) No, the US is the largest node in our economic web. Their economy is the largest, only the EEA comes close to equalling them
2) It would. I'd like to see the US removed from their position of hegemony
>>61611990
>1
Maybe. I doubt it though. The rest of the sea cunts and India and Russia will develoe quite a bit too and China will be too surrounded to have the same influence as us. Our power will still erode though over time as all of these cunts get more powerful
>2
Good thing desu. US has too much power and the world needs more alternatives/competition
1. doubt it
2. it won't ever happen and that makes me happy :) usa stronk
>>61612089
>Their economy is the largest
In 20 or 30 years, China should be well above USA. Their 6-7% yearly growth is unstoppable.
>>61612165
Russia is ten times less populated. It can't even compete economically.
India will be very developed too, but China is taking the lead geopolitically.
1. No. China will grow strong enough to break US hegemony but the two countries will have comparable amounts of power, but China has too many issues even in the long-term to be undisputed #1.
2. No. While the breaking of the US hegemony might have long-term benefits, I can't see how it would make my life or my country any better off.
>>61612089
>wanting to see dog massacring, women selling gooks at num 1
1 not in our lifetime
2. i don't think it would affect average people here, even if china overtook us in geopolitics we could defend ourselves just fine.
however, it would be funny to see all the people that bashed america eat their words if/when a country like china took over.
>>61612242
>Their 6-7% yearly growth is unstoppable.
Their yearly growth is fabricated by local officials
>>61612242
The larger and more developed the economy is the slower it grows. You can't just take a country's current GDP growth and then look forward 30 years with any accuracy. China is already preparing for slower growth, and they actually have to prepare for slower growth or they're fucked because with their current credit situation they simply cannot continue debt-fueled investment.
That's not even getting into other long-term trends like demographics.
1.No
China is decades behind the US in military technology and training, not to mention the US military is much larger and has a better command structure. Economically they are beginning to stagnate and their model of producing the world's cheap shit is unsustainable. They are now beginning to see stronger signs of economic trouble on the horizon with the collapse of their housing bubble. Not to mention the US naval base on Okinawa gives the US an easy platform to blockade China from the sea which would cripple their economy and the resulting recession would be hugely damaging to the Communist party.
Further, the USA is allies with basically all the other ASEAN countries and they will act in concert to check any attempts by China to assert their authority in the region. China is blocked on all sides by US allies, the classic US strategy of encirclement and co-option.
The only way I could realistically see China even becoming a regional hegemon would be if the USA basically deserted the Pacific or if Japan went Imperial again and decided to tell the US to fuck off, thereby depriving them of a key ally and military base and destabilizing US control over the region.
2. Like most Americans, my feelings towards American global military dominance is ambivalent. I wish we didn't have to do it but at this point the stakes are too high for us to return to an isolationist policy. The rest of the world would revert to struggles for regional dominance which would inevitably expand into huge and destructive wars (see: The world prior to WW2).
>>61613056
>China is decades behind the US in military technology
Duh. It's a developing country.
>Economically they are beginning to stagnate
6% growth (with longer-term prospects at 4 or 5%) is "stagnating"?
>Economically they are beginning to stagnate
Their stock market already collapsed and they're doing fine.
>an easy platform to blockade China from the sea
What is the new silk road? Also it wouldn't be too smart to blockade your main commercial partner (China makes 20% of your imports).
>resulting recession would be hugely damaging to the Communist party
You think like an American. (LET'S FUCK UP THEIR ECONOMY AND THEY'LL B ANGRY @ THEIR GOVERNMENT AND OVERTHROW IT LOL!!!!!) Doesn't work like that in authoritarian regimes with a subservient population.
>check any attempts by China to assert their authority in the region
China already asserts its "authority" in the whole world (Africa, Latin America...), but not with its military obviously.
>destabilizing US control over the region
It is dubious that USA will retain any kind of control when the region gets more developed. How is your small nation going to "control" a continent of 5,000,000,000 people with a developed economy, a developed military, etc.? They'll do just fine without US meddling.
>The rest of the world would revert to struggles for regional dominance
The struggles will be too big for USA.
>which would inevitably expand into huge and destructive wars
How is it bad for an isolationist USA? Why do you even care?
>>61611990
No, China will always be Number Chu
>>61611990
Until China manages to stop pissing off its neighbors, fix their massive youth unemployment problem with means other than using them as a paramilitary police force, fix their massive housing bubble, develop their heavy industry to the level of being able to make anything requiring sophisticated metallurgy such as a decent goddamn jet engine, and finally get rid of the Chinese Communist Party than no, not going to happen.
>>61614006
>6% growth (with longer-term prospects at 4 or 5%) is "stagnating"?
No one intelligent believes in their self claimed gpd rates anymore. Take a look at electricity usage or other material production figures and you'll see that growth has substantially stagnated.
>What is the new silk road? Also it wouldn't be too smart to blockade your main commercial partner (China makes 20% of your imports).
The silk road isn't ready and is just as vulnerable.
You also really don't understand the dynamics of imports. The power is in the hands of those who are buying the service not the other way around. Manufacturing is already leaving china because wages are $4 an hour. Once the TPP is signed there will be little reason to do business in china were your IP is likely to be stolen when it's cheaper and safer to do it in Vietnam or Philippines.
>It is dubious that USA will retain any kind of control when the region gets more developed. How is your small nation going to "control" a continent of 5,000,000,000 people with a developed economy, a developed military, etc.? They'll do just fine without US meddling.
So the US doesn't have major influence in Japan or Korea because it's developed?
As the region gets more developed it will be closer intwined in trade with the United States. Meanwhile English is already the lingua franca of business. The number of English speakers in SEA is only going to rise as will American culture.
In the end, the thing that made China so wealth was it's young workforce which was desperately poor. They accepted blatant corruption of the CCP because year on year their lives got better. But now the work is drying up and moving out of China. Meanwhile demographics are changing and those same young workers are now becoming old. China messed up policies have created a massive demographic bubble which will make it old before it will ever had a chance of becoming rich.
Captcha: French Fries
>>61614006
China's entire economic model relies on double digit growth and non-quality growth. It literally can't exist long-term without both. They've been trying and failing to transform it for years.
>>61614006
>developing country
That term doesn't mean anything. Every country is 'developing'. Regardless there's still a huge gap and it gets bigger every day. Look at the budgets alone.
>6% growth (with longer-term prospects at 4 or 5%) is "stagnating"?
2015 was their worst year, economically, in decades. Yes, they are stagnating. Their economic model is unsustainable and they haven't demonstrated that they know how to take the next step.
>What is the new silk road?
Do you know anything about global trade? Kek, think of how expensive and slow that would be, and those are only some of the logistical problems. That would not be feasible at all, as China needs to move huge amounts of cheap goods at very slim margins to maintain their economic strategy. Look at how much of the world's goods move via ocean freight.
>Doesn't work like that in authoritarian regimes with a subservient population.
I never said it would cause a revolution you baka. However, Chinese leadership is conservative to the core and far too insecure to risk upsetting the economy, which is their biggest claim to success.
>subservient Chinese populace
You mean the subservient population that had a revolution less than 100 years ago? The authoritarian regime that can't even stamp out unrest and violence in Xinjiang? It's easy to throw around buzzwords without proof.
>China already asserts its "authority" in the whole world (Africa, Latin America...)
So Latin America and Africa are the whole world? Anyways economic cooperation =/= power projection. They haven't been able to effect political change in any significant country in the last 30 years. They can't even control NK anymore. Look at how much of a role the USA has in shaping European and Asian regional politics. China is nowhere close and they are not making progress.
I don't think you really know much about this topic
Not with that language and writing system they're not.
>>61611990
1. No
2. No
China is a totalitarian state and those governments do not become superpowers, at best an ersatz superpower like the USSR which folded up like a tent a handful of years after its geopolitical peak.
>>61614267
>>61614267
>It is dubious that USA will retain any kind of control when the region gets more developed
What logic do you base this on? The USA already dominates the much more developed continent of Europe with a tiny number of troops as our domination is not only based on the projection of military power. Also the USA leaving would open a huge power vacuum leading to struggle for control of the Pacific. China and Japan will go to war and the US will step in again to pick up the pieces (if there's anything left) and dominate the region.
>The struggles will be too big for USA.
Maybe? That's entirely theoretical. Not sure what point you're even trying to make.
>How is it bad for an isolationist USA? Why do you even care?
Hmm how is destructive global warfare bad for the USA? This isn't 1945 where we can just sit back and sell weapons to everyone and laugh. I don't want to see trade get disrupted, our allies potentially get destroyed, nuclear weapons being used, etc etc etc... Being 'cool' with global warfare is the hallmark of a child.
>>61613056
>China is decades behind the US in military technology and training, not to mention the US military is much larger and has a better command structure.
The PLA has:
>25-30 year old equipment except for elite units
>poor training regimes--most of the time soldiers are trained how to spell out the characters for a visiting dignitary's name rather than useful combat skills
>extensive corruption--a career as an army officer is a great way to achieve advancement through the ranks of the CCP
>no ability to project power partially due to China's geography
>almost no combat experience; no Chinese person under the age of 50 has ever been in an actual shooting war
>most recruits come from the poor, shitty parts of the country so they're often not in the best physical condition
Even if they overtake as an economic power they will never reach even close to the levels of American diplomatic, military, and cultural power.
The world supremacy of white European nations since the 16th century has been due to two factors: Lucky geography and inhabiting some of the best farmland on the globe. From the US and Western Europe, it is possible to get to almost anywhere on the globe with ease.
>>61614404
B-but anon they have a 'state of the art' carrier now! China stronk!
>>61614445
The US always will have an advantage here in that we're an ideological nation rather than merely being a homeland for an ethnic group. No nation would want China as their master as that would just be perceived as the enslavement of you by a particular ethnic group.
>>61614474
By that logic, it's easy to get to Europe or the USA from anywhere else on the globe, too. Doesn't seem like much of an advantage.
>>61614500
It isn't though. China has only one coastline and it leads out across the huge expanse of the Pacific. Europe had the luck of being a considerably shorter distance to North America (which was important in the age of sailing ships), what's more the side of the continent facing Europe was the one with the good farmland and lots of open space. This enabled easy European colonization of the New World.
Too many americans in this thread. Let some other cunts speak.
>>61614552
And the European coast leads out to the huge expanse of the Atlantic. Also Asia is much closer to the Americas due to the Bering strait, which people actually did cross to colonize North America thousands of years ago. So if asians were the first to reach the USA thousands of years before Europeans, why didn't they use the massive farmlands to dominate the world?
There's much more to it than just proximity.
>>61614632
>And the European coast leads out to the huge expanse of the Atlantic
Did you actually even read the sentence after that one.
>>61614659
That Europe is closer to NA? But that's false.
Did you even read the 2nd sentence I wrote?
>>61611990
The chinese haven't mastered the art of making the rest of the world care about their celebrities, they are culturally irrelevant except for parts of SEA or something.
>>61611990
>China
>replacing the Jew
No way
>>61614675
which celebs do suomifriends care about
>>61611990
No, at most it could become comparable economically but will always be inferior when it comes to military and cultural pull.
>>61614699
Yanks, swedes and our own.
>>61614699
Pekka Rinne
Or in Finnish: Bekka Pinne :DDDDDD
>>61614672
It is 3465 miles from London to NYC. To get from Shanghai to San Francisco it is 6145 miles about 2x the distance. Imagine trying that back in the age of sailing ships.
>>61614740
The fact is, Asia is much closer to North America and asians even came here first. Your argument of pure proximity is incorrect.
>>61614839
>6145 miles is smaller than 3465 miles
Did you fail 4th grade math?
That aside, the eastern half of North America has a similar climate to Europe and is suited for European crops and lifestyles. Supposing it weren't so far to get from China to the west coast of NA, the climate there is drastically different, also you'd only be able to go inland a short distance before running into a giant wall of desert and mountains.
>>61614852
You're trying to make a false comparison between London and Shanghai when that's not the subject. Look at a map. Look at the Bering Strait.
Anyways asians got to the Americas first which completely invalidates your theory that it was merely proximity.
>>61611990
1. Could be if they beat communists
2. I have no idea
>>61614880
>Look at a map. Look at the Bering Strait
That's really far north and away from China and has rough seas which are dangerous to transverse, let alone at a time when you had wooden ships.
>>61611990
1. Maybe. I dunno. I am making preparations just in case.
2. No. It should not make anyone in the "West" happy. The US has to be careful, it has not treated brown people very well and they may defect to a more Chinacentric hegemony if it does not fix its shit. I don't think a Chinacentric world would be good, if we use history and see how "hanification" has happened within the country, China may try to "hanify" the world if it becomes a hegemon.
Therefore the only viable route from East Asia to NA is by going straight across the Pacific in warm weather and calm seas, but again it's 2x further than Europe to NA and also you land on the more arid side of the continent which is totally unsuited for East Asian crops and agricultural techniques.
>>61615004
>The US has to be careful, it has not treated brown people very well
Get lost, La Raza.
>>61615019
... But people crossing the Bering Strait from Asia were the first to settle in the Americas. When Europeans arrived thousands of years later, their advanced technology, culture, and governance allowed them to dominate and conquer the people they found in the Americas.
I think those factors are very much more important than 'proximity' which is a pretty nebulous concept.
>>61615074
There was a land bridge connecting the two continents back then. It had not existed in thousands of years by the time recorded history began.
>>61611990
1. yes. And India will exceed that.
2. They who is defeated by India will become our followers and we will be happy.
>>61615105
Exactly.
So your theory that 'Europe is closer, therefore they got to the Americas first and exploited it' (aka >two factors:lucky geography and best farmlands) is incorrect.
Europeans were not the first people to inhabit the Americas. Other people who were closer got here first. The people who inhabited the Americas developed very little technologically in their thousands of years here.
The Europeans conquered the Americas from the people they found there through warfare. This conquest was also enabled by European government and culture which bankrolled and promoted it.
Therefore, we can say that European superiority in technology, culture, and governance allowed them to defeat people who were lucky enough to reach the Americas prior to them through the benefit of close proximity.
>>61614226
Can't answer in detail because it's 8 AM here and gotta sleep, but there's a little difference between having influence on Japan + Korea, or even Europe... and having influence on a continent of 5,000,000,000.
The main cause of American influence is that USA outnumbers all other developed countries. That's all, really. Once China and India become fully developed, USA will be dwarfed, unless it goes full immigration and has a population of 1,000,000,000 before the end of the century.
>but English is the lingua franca of XXX!
French too was a "lingua franca", only because France outnumbered everyone in Western Europe (until the 19th century). Linguistic dominance disappeared when other countries (Germany + United Kingdom, and finally USA) got more populous.
You don't think USA dominates thanks to its flawless virtues, do you? It's just a numbers game. And you're (we're) going to lose that game really bad.
>>61614267
Alright, you made fair points: I know nothing at all, I'm a baka, I throw buzzwords, etc.
Meanwhile you should just google "new silk road" to avoid looking pointlessly condescending.
>>61614360
>OMG IF THE BIG WHITE MAN ISN'T HERE TO DISCIPLINE THESE FUCKING CHINKS AND GOOKS, THEY'RE GOING TO BLOW THE PLANET AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ding ding ding the world's policeman is here, based USA lol
>>61614710
>always
No such thing in real life.
>>61615213
The argument was why it was not possible for China to colonize the New World at the same time when Europeans did. You keep shifting to a completely different argument here.
>>61615313
>The world supremacy of white European nations
You never said anything about China until you realized you were dead wrong about Europe being the closest to America.
Anyways it wasn't just enough to 'get here' to colonize it. They subjugated two continents worth of people which is a far more relevant feat than 'proximity'. You treat it like a foregone conclusion that China would have done the same if one of their admirals washed up here.
>>61615363
>You never said anything about China until you realized you were dead wrong about Europe being the closest to America
How was I wrong? I pointed out that to get from China to the west coast of NA is over 2x further travel distance than from Europe to the east coast of NA and you continued to argue with me on that point.
>>61615313
Actually it's a very interesting question. China under the Ming Dynasty had a very powerful fleet and European traders definitely would have told them about the new continent.
>>61615404
Yes, London is closer to the US than Shanghai. If that was your point why didn't you just say that until I pointed out you were wrong?
No, Europe is not the closest to the Americas so it was not 'proximity' that allowed Europeans to magically dominate the world. It was mostly other factors I've already mentioned.
>>61615440
>No, Europe is not the closest to the Americas
It's closer in terms of there actually being a navigable route. You keep going on about the Bering Strait when I had explained that it's a completely unsuitable and dangerous area to travel through back in the age of sailing ships.
>If that was your point why didn't you just say that until I pointed out you were wrong?
>>61614552
I said it all the way back here.
Just some guessing, but the Ming court certainly had to know it was a long distance across the Pacific and even longer to go around Africa. As far as land and gold? They had enough as they were.
>>61611990
1. No
2. Yes, that it isn't
>>61615469
>Europe had the luck of being a considerably shorter distance to North America
But this is false. Asia is closer to North America.
And asians got here first. It was not 'proximity' that killed all the natives. It was European steel.
To say that it's just because of being closer is rubbish. However, it is technically true that London is closer than Shanghai, yes.
>>61615487
The Ming emperors just weren't interested. China has always preferred a network of tributary states to hard colonization.
>>61615513
>But this is false. Asia is closer to North America.
You just admitted here >>61615440 it's not.
>>61615531
Yes, I agree that London is closer than Shanghai. Otherwise your point about proximity being a main factor is incorrect.
In Ian Morris' excellent Why The West Rules - For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, he offers one explanation:
Europeans' most obvious geographical advantage was physical: the prevailing winds, the placing of islands, and the sheer size of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans made things easier for them. ...
...[Furthermore] in the fifteenth century economic and political geography conspired to multiply the advantages that physical geography gave western Europe. Eastern social development was much higher than Western, and thanks to men like Marco Polo, Westerners knew it. This gave Westerners economic incentives to get to the East and tap into the richest markets on earth. Easterners, by contrast, had few incentives to go west. They could rely on everyone else to come to them. [2]
>>61611990
1. No
2. Happy America will still be number one
t.japanese diaspora
>>61615542
>Otherwise your point about proximity being a main factor is incorrect
Then what are these "main factors" you keep speaking of but never seem to explain what they were?
Most of those posting under the US flag on /int/, are self-hating whites and millennial progressives of the following type:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0diJNybk0Mw
They would welcome their country being subordinated to China, not because China is deserving, but because their hatred of the US is so overwhelming
>>61611990
>1. Will China replace USA as the #1 country?
No. Too unstable.
>2. Does it make you happy?
No.
>>61615563
Please see:
>>61615213
>>61615363
>>61615553
It is true that the Atlantic is half the size of the Pacific, yet primitive Polynesian peoples with canoes managed to cross great distances and settled as far east as Hawaii. Polynesians managed to even reach Easter Island. All this was long before anyone attempted to cross the Atlantic. And although "economic incentives" may have played their part, when it comes to exploration Westerners have almost always had a broader view on what constitutes an economic incentive than Easterners
There have been at least five independent discoveries of the Americas - five moments in time when societies previously unaware of the continents stumbled across them. Perhaps 20,000 years ago, the ancestors of the American Indians arrived from northeast Asia in one or more waves. Arctic hunters such as the Eskimos may have first reached Alaska in a separate migration roughly 10,000 years later.
The next discoverers were probably the Polynesians, who appear to have crossed the Pacific to visit the west coast of South America sometime between 600 and 1000 CE [4]. They may even have been there when, in around 985 CE, the Norse hit the opposite end of the Americas from Greenland and Iceland in the first known crossings of the Atlantic.
Finally, in 1492, Columbus sailed directly across the Atlantic to land in the West Indies, claiming the whole lot for Spain. Within only a few decades, the Americas would be tied firmly into the global economy, their isolation ended forever.
>>61611990
Possibly
Not really. With a single country on top there is less threat of another cold war should the two countries have poor relations. I'm also not sure that I trust China being far enough above us to completely take our place.
Their government is greedy, and they will do what they will for power. It will be much worse than us. While we may be puppets to big companies, China will be fully pragmatic and selfish should they not be kept in check.
>>61615640
>Polynesians crossed the Pacific to visit the west coast of South America sometime between 600 and 1000 CE
Dear reddit, TIL
good to know
>>61615640
So as far as we know, the Americas were reached at least three separate times before Columbus--from the Arctic Pacific, the tropical Pacific, the Arctic Atlantic, and finally the apparently easiest route, the tropical Atlantic, came last.
Indeed, not only did ancestral American Indians and Eskimos arrive using a Pacific route thousands of years before anyone else, but Polynesians had possibly reached the Americas, and certainly reached Easter Island, before Europeans had even made it to nearby Iceland.
If stone-aged peoples were able to cross the Pacific well before technologically more advanced cultures could make their first moves into the Atlantic, can we really conclude that the Europeans reached the New World before the Chinese because it was easier to cross the Atlantic?
>USA
>#1 country
You make me kek so hard, mate. USA has the most powerful army, that's all why you think it's #1 cunt? Ok, they have a lot of good scientists because guys from Pakistan, Russia, Japan and other shitholes (actually, Japan is not a shithole) wants money to continue their researches. A half of american science was build by immigrants. I think the best country is... I don't know. May be Australia? It has good level of life and there are not so many immigrants like in Europe.
I would be indeed very happy if America collapsed.
Fuck you yanks.
>>61615726
But Poland and EU will collapsed too without America and Russia will conquer Rzecz agai
>>61615710
Well put anon.
>>61615710
While the Atlantic may be narrower, the Pacific has the advantage of numerous fertile archipelagos spreading out from Southeast Asia, becoming smaller and sparser as they go. If anywhere on earth offered a perfect set of baby steps for cultures to develop their navigation skills, surely it was here? After all, it was from here that early seafarers spanned out to colonize New Guinea, Australia, Madagascar, New Zealand, and the Pacific islands.
These islands were large and fertile enough to supply and refit European Pacific expeditions in the 18th and 19th centuries, so there seems to be no reason why Chinese explorers couldn't have used them. They were also occupied by tribal peoples, who were usually more amenable than the rival European powers who controlled more and more of the islands of the Atlantic.
>>61615745
Seeing the US collapse is worth it.
I am Greek
However, the easiest ocean to navigate is the one that doesn't border the Americas--the Indian Ocean. While Zheng He is often regarded as China's greatest explorer, he was merely traversing seas already well known.
By 2500 BC, maritime traders had connected Egypt to East Africa and Mesopotamia to India. Greeks, Romans, and Indians would extend this trade network, with merchants sailing directly from Egypt to India by the first century BC. Roman ambassadors may even have traveled the entire distance by sea when they reached China in 166 AD.
Add Malay migrants and Arab traders into the mix, and, by 1000 BC shipping routes stretched from Egypt and Sofala to Java and southern China.
Not that this is a criticism of Zheng He - he was on a diplomatic mission to inspire awe in the states of the Indian Ocean, not claiming to discover new lands or explore seas he would have known had been humming with trade for hundreds of years.
>>61611990
Not really. Sure, there is a lot of Chinks but that's almost literally all they've got. Technologically, they are still backwards, a large percent of their population is still rural, one child policy has now fucked them demographically and once they start getting richer, there will be a turmoil when it comes to governance.
Furthermore, nobody actually likes them. They would have to work REALLY hard to break the cultural hegemony of Western culture and when you compare the ease of learning English and Mandarin, the odds are not in their favour. They also border India which is more or less an English speaking country.
So, while Zheng He might in many respects have been a better man than Columbus or Magellan, he didn't venture into the unknown or discover much that was new. And if Zheng He wasn't a great explorer in that sense, could China have produced one even with more of an incentive? During the time of the Roman Empire, when, according to Morris, Western social development was higher than Eastern, numerous travelers crisscrossed Eurasia. In this environment, the Chinese would have had plenty of incentives to travel west, yet few if any seem to have.
Roman merchants and envoys reached China, but when Gan Ying was sent as a Chinese envoy to Rome in 97 AD, he made it no further than the Persian Gulf. From the presence of Nestorian Christianity, Judaism, and especially Buddhism in China and the absence of Confucianism and Taoism in the west, it also appears that there were a lot more missionaries traveling to China at this time than from it.
Fast forward over another 1500 years of continually expanding Western knowledge of the world in the face of the economic superiority of the East, and we reach the 18th century. The West and the East have once again, by Morris's measures, reached parity in social development. Yet China's will to explore is possibly even less than before, while Europe is not only just as keen to reach China but is now also exploring the world simply for the sake of science.
>>61615774
What did America do to Greece?
But if the Pacific hasn't discouraged exploration and no economic incentive so far encountered in history has made China more inclined to exploration than Europe, why didn't China discover America? Perhaps the best way to answer this is by asking another question: What would China have gained if it had discovered America before Europe? And the answer to that is: Almost nothing because Europe would still have colonized the Americas first.
Why? Because even though the Chinese discovered Taiwan and the Philippines before the Europeans did and had all the advantages of proximity, Europe colonized those places first too. And if China was unable or unwilling to profit from such nearby discoveries, there is little reason to believe it would have behaved differently had it encountered vastly more distant lands.
So China failed to discover America because there was little value in doing so. Had they succeeded, history would probably have turned out pretty much the same, just with an even grander, more expensive period of wasted Chinese exploration. Romantic yes, but regimes don't survive long by squandering their resources to cater for the romantic notions of future historians.
Indeed, when Europeans arrived in the East in the 16th century with evidence of the wealth of the New World, the Chinese made little effort to expel them from their new colonies or even to adopt their military and naval technology - things that the Europeans would certainly have attempted had the situation been reversed. The writing was appearing on the wall, yet still China did not rouse.
However one Eastern empire did act - updating its military, building modern ships, and sending expeditions to European colonies from the Straits of Malacca to Mexico. That country was Japan and what it did next is instructive.
anon is on a roll
Are we going to read a book tonight?
>>61615726
Aye fuck you too Polaks
By the beginning of the 17th century Japan had one of the most powerful armies on Earth and was building a modern navy. Within a generation it could have removed any serious rivals from the Pacific, instead it turned to self-imposed isolation. Why?
In 1492, Columbus sailed west into the Atlantic in the expectation of reaching "Cipangu" (Japan). In 1942 [2], Cipangu struck back. Sweeping away the European overlords of Southeast Asia in a few short months, its modern military and navy undid centuries of colonial rule. However, it was three hundred years too late.
While Japan had been waiting in self-isolation, America had been colonized and built itself into a superpower. When Japan finally joined the modern world in the late 19th century, ironically enough because of American pressure, it was to be the sole Asian great power on a planet ruled by the West. Its great expansion in 1942 was really a desperate bid to rectify the situation, one that would lead to Japan's total defeat at the hands of America in the Second World War.
But did things really have to happen this way? Why indeed did Japan and China close themselves off from the world in the early modern era, letting Europe seize not just the Americas but strategic Asian territories?
>>61615865
I love this anon. It looks like political analyst in DC are up late tonight.
The 19th century was not the first time Japan had opened its doors to the West and modernized its armed forces. It had also done so in response to the arrival of European traders in the 16th and early 17th centuries.
The Portuguese first introduced firearms, in the form of the harquebus, into Japan in 1543. The Japan of the time was divided amongst squabbling warlords, some of whom were eager to adopt Western military technology to gain an edge over their opponents.
By the 1570s, Japanese factions were not only fielding armies of thousands of trained harquebusiers but had also mastered the production of their own firearms. In 1590, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, one of the gun-backed warlords, finally unified the country.
The Japanese navy also expanded and modernized in this period. From the late 16th century, armed Japanese merchantmen spread throughout Southeast Asia. These "red-seal ships" would also send Japanese adventurers and mercenaries as far afield as Indonesia, Thailand, and India.
Other Japanese traveled even further. With the aid of the English sailor William Adams, Japan built several modern warships, sending expeditions to Mexico in 1609, 1613, and 1617.
Using their modern army, the Japanese overran Korea in 1592, remaining there until Chinese and Korean resistance finally evicted them six years later. But this was where their expansion ended. [4] In the 1630s they proceeded to ban Christianity and the building of ocean-going ships and restricted foreign trade to a Dutch outpost off Nagasaki, policies which remained in place until Japan was "re-opened" in 1853.
So why did Japan stop here? They had the biggest modern army in the Far East and could have built a sizeable navy to go with it. With such forces they could easily have allied with the Dutch to oust the Spanish from the Philippines, then turned on the Dutch to drive them out of Indonesia. Having won the Pacific War in the 17th century, they could then have moved to colonize the west coast of North America and maybe even expel the Spanish from Mexico and Peru.
Militarily this was possible - East Asians were quite capable of conquering Western European held islands. Dutch-led Japanese mercenaries helped overthrow the Portuguese in Southeast Asia in the early 17th century and a Chinese faction was perfectly able to seize Dutch ruled Taiwan in 1662.
The Japanese also had strong incentives to strike. Economically, you don't need post-1942 hindsight to see the benefits of controlling the world's spice and silver supplies, not to mention dominating the sea trade with China. Militarily, the Europeans were divided among themselves with their vulnerable Asian colonies at the end of overstretched supply lines. Politically and culturally, Japan also wanted to do away with the influence of European missionaries.
Everything about Japan's situation in the 17th century suggests it had the advantages that Morris gives Europe in the 15th century. Physical geography, proximity, economic and developmental incentives all favored Japan. Yet they were not enough.
Things become a little clearer when we stop talking about Japan and start talking about the Japanese regime, the ruling body in any given period. During the civil war and again during the late 19th and into the 20th centuries, Japanese regimes faced existential threats - internal and external competitors that could potentially overthrow them. It was during and immediately after these periods that Japan's modernization bids took off.
By contrast, in the period in between (1615-1853), Japan remained largely unthreatened and modernization was no longer necessary for state survival. Indeed the only serious threats to the regime were internal revolts. Not only could these threats be suppressed without modern technology or foreign involvement, those factors actually increased the risks involved.
Peasants or rival factions armed with guns were harder to defeat than those using traditional weapons, while foreign influences were more likely to inflame internal divisions than promote stability. Similar arguments could be made against overseas colonization, which would both enrich and empower the individuals involved and thereby also pose a threat to the regime.
Note that we talk here about existential threats rather than just competition. Competition is often brought up as a reason for the rise of Europe, comparing for instance Columbus' ability to go from kingdom to kingdom to gain a sponsor with the Chinese Empire's ability to forbid all overseas voyages.
However there is usually no attempt to quantify what is sufficient competition or whether competition exists on some sort of sliding scale. In 17th century East Asia, there was sufficient imperial rivalry that Japanese and European adventurers could travel between states seeking employment yet not enough to keep Japan on the path of modernization.
Thus the competition provided by the existence of multiple powers was insufficient in itself to create a Europe-style takeoff. What was needed was something more potent - existential threats.
It has often been pointed out that Europe's peninsulas, islands, and mountain ranges made unification difficult. Perhaps equally important is that they never made it impossible. No European power could ever afford to drop its guard or risk being left behind in the races for technology or overseas influence. Every possible advantage needed to be fought for, as even the most secure European regimes could fall to foreign invasion if they weren't careful.
Japan's ruling body, on the other hand, was never so threatened, at least not between the attempted Mongol invasions in the 13th century and the arrival of the Americans in the 19th. It was indeed secure and hence had no need to risk the instability that usually accompanies modernization and colonization.
So despite a promising start, the Japanese Empire failed to modernize or found a colonial empire in the 17th century because it didn't need to do those things to survive. And if this explains Japan's self-isolation, what clues does it give us to explain China's even greater lethargy?
>>61611990
no, chinese culture is shit.
>>61612079
>in 30 to 50 years
Kek
Maybe if they can actually survive their huge economic bubble bursting. China is going to end up just like Japan did in the 90s. The US still has the largest consumer market by a significant margin, access to both major trade networks, and the single largest piece of arable land on the planet. I don't really foresee China overtaking the US, especially with their economic issues and corrupt as fuck government which makes the US look tame as fuck.
China can make all the money they want, but it'll be hard for any other country on Earth to have the ability to project power like the US can.
>>61615997
>tfw hate China nowadays but fucking love their ancient culture
I fucking love Chinese food, and have this strange fascination with their history.
The countries who sent out and supported colonizers had one main thing in common: a LACK of land area to expand into.
China did not have this problem.
>>61616928
This, China is it's own empire with more people living inside of it than all of Europe and the USA combined. It can barely effectively govern that, let alone expand further without buckling.
Another thing, their population is rapidly aging and they'll be one of the first nations in the world to begin ageing before reaching First World level development.
Once that sets in their economic boom will grind to a halt (as it already is) and there'll likely be a change of leadership as the middle class demands a more accountable and representative government.
In this period the political situation there will be extremely turbulent and volate, susceptible to rises in nationalism and populist driven expansionism. If the USA and it's allies are able to contain it over the next 5 decades or so, the threat will likely pass and China will sink back to a regional power whilst the USA will continue it's global hegemony.
>>61611990
1. Maybe, but I could be dead by then
2. No, burgerland sucks but china sucks more
>>61612242
>not realising these numbers were mostly falsified in the first place (which leading CCP officials have admitted to repeatedly)
>putting that aside, believing that that sort of growth can continue forever without some sort of bust
you clearly don't understand history or economics very well m8.
>>61617040
Will you help us to Eiffel Tower China after their eventual collapse?
Japan always makes it weird
>>61617090
Shotgun the ass
>>61612570
>China has too many issues even in the long-term to be undisputed #1.
Such as?
>>61617111
Being Chinese
>>61617040
In the XIII century, China had 2x the population of Europe and their climate and agricultural potential was quite close. At any time before the colonial era, China was more pressed for land than Europe despite plague epidemics killing a large number of people in both regions.
Europeans however could also rely on the wide open expanses of western Russia for food and in fact Ukraine became one of the continent's great breadbaskets. China however had nothing but inhospitable deserts and mountains to her west.
Also the American colonies were almost useless as far as providing food for the home continent; all produce grown there was consumed by the locals and the vast majority of exports back across the Atlantic were cash crops like sugar, tobacco, and spices. Emigration to the colonies also was inconsequential relative to Europe's total population.
>>61617111
Well let's start with a couple obvious ones; almost every urban area is blanketed with thick clouds of poison, half the population will likely keel over with cancer before reaching 60, their agricultural land is irreversibly polluted and only capable of subpar produce no developed country would buy, heavy gender imbalance, ageing population, massive and endemic corruption.
>>61611990
No country that eats dogs can be taken seriously.
I think you could boil it down to competition. Europe contained many separate countries each fighting one another for dominance and control. This competition inspired them to gain advantage through conquest and colonization of lands that were outside the European sphere. While China certainly had its factions and civil wars, they were for the most part largely united as a single nation under a single dynasty. They had very few external threats given their unique geographic position, so there was no pressure from the outside to look for places to expand to gain leverage over an opponent, same thing in India.
We can look for at all of the "other" reasons in terms of religion, societal makeup, etc. but I think the most compelling remains the idea of competition for limited resources and trying to gain an advantage over each other. The Spanish and Portugese originally set out on their expeditions to bypass the Ottoman and Venetian traders monopoly on luxury goods. If say those territories had been part of some greater European empire the quest for exploration and later colonization would not have been as strong
IDK, undisputed hegemony leads to decadence. Look at current American elections, it's between corrupt hag and populist demagogue.
Still it will probably take several centuries for American hegemony to end due to their geographical advantage.
Are we not counting the attempts by Kublai Khan in 1274 and 1281 to invade and conquer Japan? The second one involved 140,000 Chinese soldiers and sailors and the expedition was famously blown apart by "The Divine Wind."
Maybe the Chinese concluded that that they were not meant to be foreign imperialists.
>>61617237
Depends on whether you count the Yuan Dynasty as Chinese or Mongol and certainly their indigenous historical texts have never considered it anything more than a foreign dynasty that enslaved the Chinese people and was cast off by the Ming emperors. As soon as the Mongols were expelled, the Ming court undertook to drive out any Mongol influence from the national culture. One of these was a conservative foreign policy based strictly on self-defense rather than expansionism.
Even then, Zhang He's expeditions happened under the Ming Dynasty but were mostly there to collect tribute and impress the might of the Chinese emperor on foreign rulers. There was no attempt to actually colonize anywhere or conquer foreign states and Zhang He was later called back home and his voyages almost airbrushed out of official histories per the orders of the Hong Wu Emperor. After the XV century, China remained a strictly inward looking nation with no foreign policy interests beyond her own security and preventing another Mongol conquest.
This is the best thread I've been in for quite awhile. Thanks anon
Maybe the question, instead of concentrating on the Chinese, is more salient when asking why ONLY the Europeans entered into an ongoing and methodical colonial era of several centuries.
The answer to that was that colonialism is only practical upon the discovery of a population that can be profitably colonized, and the Europeans were on the rim of an ocean across which a suitable opportunity for colonialism presented itself.
Wherever Chinese traders went, the lands were already pretty well civilized with established cultures, economies and infrastructures. To colonize them would have meant going to war against peoples who were already somewhat sophisticated in the arts of defense. They were not facing Neolithic primitives like the Europeans encountered in the Americas.
At the outset, European colonialism was limited to establishing way stations en route to trading partners. It then evolved into whatever riches were then found for the grabbing.
>>61617370
Very true on the development level of the other cultures the Chinese ran into. They were interested in trade with these people and in receiving tribute from them, but they were not interested in fighting a war with them to gain far flung influence.
Chinese militarism really didn't pick up in their own immediate sphere, outside of fighting the Mongols, until the end of the Qing Dynasty as they attempted to assert their influence in their own backyard.
I go back to the pressure of competition as the driving force behind European exploration. That exploration uncovered lands that contained people who could be dominated and exploited, hence colonialism, which was just another extent of that same competition for influence and resources back in Europe. The Chinese were under no similar pressure and the people that they did reach were much better as trading partners and tribute payers, than they would have been as adversaries on the battlefield.
On the whole, China has never had a strong tradition of militarism in her culture like the European states, partially because of being in a comfortably secure geographical position and not having to constantly wage war on rival states as Europeans did.
Zheng He's fleet consisted of huge ships that well exceeded anything Europeans had back then. The one thing European ships had that they didn't were cannons.
Then afterwards, the emperor ordered Zheng He's ships scuttled and forbade the construction of any future oceangoing vessels.
>>61617370
>They were not facing Neolithic primitives like the Europeans encountered in the Americas.
Actually there's quite convincing evidence that the Chinese explored the north of Australia, the West Coast of the USA and even as far as the East Coast of the African continent (which was home to established cultures, but also primitive tribes and such).
>>61617236
America will always be either a superpower or great power though entirely because of our geographical advantage.
Feels goodman
>>61615719
>mainlanders
>>61617501
The Chinese in the 15th century not only had oceangoing ships, but fairly accurate maps of the Americas, all drawn before Columbus set forth. The big mystery is why the Chinese didn't keep going and reached Europe before Columbus and Vasco de Gama made their great voyages.
China had an expansionist, dynastic phase of sorts during the 8th century, when the armies of the Tang Dynasty were pressing across the Tian Shan mountains and into modern-day Kyrgyzstan.
However, this was an expensive, time-consuming, and very bloody process involving extremely long supply lines and very hostile mountain tribes with shifting allegiances. Something like the Battle of Talas in 751 was a big hit for the dynasty of the time, and expansionism in general took on some very negative connotations in Chinese culture.
There wasn't a great desire to send men and supplies across frostbitten mountain passes just to grab at slender valleys full of angry locals.
I took a class on China back in college; my (also Chinese) professor said the reason was the nature of Chinese culture itself.
In Chinese culture, China was the center of the universe. They did sent ships and explorers out; I think they even made it to America (though it can't be proven). But the Chinese had a bit of a superiority complex and figured they already had the best of everything and were more concerned with keeping the rest of the world out of China. After the voyages of Zheng He, Chinese emperors adopted an isolationist policy and maintained it for centuries; in the beginning they did have the best of everything but fell way behind over the centuries while still reveling in that annoying superiority complex.
So the answer is that exploring/conquering inferior barbarian lands just wasn't a priority to China.
>>61617188
What about the not so obvious ones?
Seoul is center of East Asia and world. Fuck China and USA.
CUZ WE WUZ HWANZ N SHIT
As a Pole, i prefer USA as long as it guarantees safety for Poland. But as soon as it is too weak and unwilling to do its duty, i prefer China as the global dominator for following reasons:
1) They actually have money, and they are ready to spend it on huge infrastructural investments in Poland that would speed up our growth significantly. USA is broke, it can barely support itself financially, not to mention making spectacular investments
2) Chineses are monoethnical and monocultural like Poles, so it is easier for them to understand us. It is not the case with multiracial and multicultural Western societies that are becoming more brown/black with time and there is a serious risk that they could also become racist against Poles, because we don't look like them. It is a XXI century nazism and racism against Polish people that is emerging in the West because we refuse being brown and muslim.
3) China is a developing country like Poland, so we have similar problems and similar status in global economics. It means that China doesn't treat Poland as slave and "junior-partner" the way West does, so our relations can be built on partnership rather than obedience.
4) China is not ruled by Jewry the way USA, Russia and so called "West" is, it means that they are not planning anytime soon to waste precious resources on pointless Middle-East wars for the good of Israel and they would never want Europe to be flooded by shitskins that this policy generates.
5) China has a real chance to weaken the West seriously. The weaker the West is, the better for Poland, because we won't have to pay loans that we took from the West, and it will be easier for us to take over Western factories installed in our country and use them for the good of our economy.
6) China is a neighbour of Russia, which creates serious potential for future conflicts. Enemy of my enemy is my friend
7) China has access to all key technologies that USA possesses, and is developing new ones all the time
As has been said the Chinese looked around, didn't see anyone who had anything to offer them, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to try to civilize a world of barbarians.
If you look into the exact purpose of Zheng He's voyages, it boiled down to something like this:
>build a huge fleet of world-class oceangoing ships
>all so you can present gifts and impress foreign kings you'll never talk to again just so they'll recognize and acknowledge the current emperor as having the Mandate of Heaven even though their opinion is irrelevant anyway
Other than that, the fleet of Zheng He really didn't do anything except intervene in a local dispute in Ceylon. A handful of Chinese settled on the east coast of Africa but their impact was so minor that their presence is only known through genetic testing. Some exotic animals were also brought back home including giraffes which were thought to be various mythological beasts such as the kirin and were a sign from the heavens that the emperor was ruling the land wisely and sagaciously. That's basically it--Zheng He's fleet bribed foreign rulers into acknowledging the emperor's right to rule China and intervened briefly in Ceylon.
The whole European concept of colonizing and settling distant lands was so foreign to the Chinese mindset that even when they were strong and had the resources, they never attempted it. Also it should be noted that Zheng He was a personal friend of the emperor which was probably a big factor in gaining approval for his voyages. Also Zheng He was not a native-born Chinese, but a Muslim slave captured in the far west. Had he been born and raised there from childhood, he might have also taken in the standard Chinese mindset.
>>61617796
How does it feel to live in the most Americanized country in east Asia?
>>61617799
>USA is broke
Quality meme
>China has access to all key technologies that USA possesses
Except they don't, they literally steal US tech all the time and are still decades behind. They didn't get the atomic bomb until the Russians practically handed it to them (after stealing the tech from the US of course).
>>61617872
That's that Polish Stormfag idiot. Please hide and ignore his posts.
>>61617799
>4) China is not ruled by Jewry the way USA
you're right, it's ruled by a jewry even worse
where street stall vendors fry you food, except it's called gutter oil, and comes from the sewers.
not even amerijews stoop to that, and I fucking hate amerijews
The internet is on pace to replace the USA as the #1 country before China is even close.
The prevailing winds make travel across the Atlantic easier than the Pacific fwiw.
>>61617872
How do you feel to live in most Koreanized country in western hemisphere?
>>61617765
I'm about to start grilling up dinner so I can't stick around, but delve around and do your own research. This guy provides a pretty nice overview for a start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyLCvdd-YUc
Don't stop there though, there's lots to be learnt on the subject from both sides of the argument.
>>61617851
...what's your point exactly? If you're trying to argue that the modern Chinese mindset can somehow be deduced by 1300s sailor, that's poppycock.
I may as well call Spaniards hyper-religious rapists if we're going by stereotypical value systems of nearly a millennium back.
Any armchair psychology that tries to deduce some cultural stereotype of China by going that far back needs to address the fact that Mao scrubbed the living hell out of Chinese history and culture during the Cultural Revolution. China has even less culture than the USA. It's basically a country that began in 1949 in terms of national culture.
>>61617985
Why can't we just be friends?
>>61617939
and you're the filthy bandits, how does it feel?
Europe was almost unique in its large number of rival nation states. Also Europe lacks the climate to grow cash crops like sugarcane or spices and it also lacks precious metals, so there was an itch to go overseas to acquire these things.
>Every time Americans anticipate the burst of the Chinese bubble only for it to "burst" and go back to the way it was
This is literally capitalism being capitalism. The same shit has been going on in America since forever if you haven't noticed.
China is fucking shit.
>>61617985
>Koreanized
I didn't even know this was a thing
Has Korean culture impacted the west at all aside from that one song by Psy?
>>61615611
Correct that the Polynesians spread all the way to New Zealand and Hawaii and may have even reached the west coast of South America.
>>61617501
Asians did colonize Australia. specifically Makassarese from the Gowa Kingdom. they colonized northern Australia for sea cucumbers. The Javanese also often raided northern Australian coast for Abo slaves.
There were expansions, but there was also a fear of the outside world that cut them short. The burning of the Zhen documents was to prevent information from getting in and out of China. Japan's closed doors came after a taste of the west which they thought they could avoid for ever.
Actually, the expansions by the nomadic Asians such as the Huns and Mongols added to these fears, creating the impression that savage barbarians lived to the west, so it was best to avoid them. So, it was not just a case of them having everything they wanted right there and then, it was also a matter of losing what they had if they showed others.
As an explanation for the lack of Asian colonial expansion in the last 500 years I don't think this is sufficient. After all, we have got no real need to go to the moon, and yet we went there. It has more to do with technology and opportunity than it has to do with any innate desire to conquer and expand. Plenty of individual Chinese made the trip to Indonesia, South Asia and India; so the motivation was not lacking. What was lacking was a state-sponsored effort. And the reasons for that are complex and varied. At the heart of it, I suspect, was technology: the Europeans had better ocean-going vessels and better navigation systems.
Of course the Chinese had more advanced technology than Europe up through the 15th century, but by the 16th had given up on any sort of technological or cultural innovations, deciding that they had already attained perfection and harmony and there was no further room for improvement.
>>61617582
where is the evidence of this claim? It sounds just like your typical national propaganda.
>>61617682
your "professor" seems to more likely a brain-washed historian who has a delusional grandeur of ancient China.
Well that's actually a rather simple question that has a rather plain answer, but get's complicated by how much influence each variable holds over the answer. So here's a complex, yet plain answer that comes down to ten points:
1. The Ming destroyed it's treasure fleet and turned inwards due to corruption. This is one of the factors leading towards the decline of Ming's projection of power. Without a fleet capable of exerting naval dominance over the Pacific it became a river and coastal fleet that never really ventured very far.
2. China had no organized states as rivals, just nomads and steppe people. In its entire 5000 year history, China has only fought a real armed conflict with three nation states, Vietnam, Japan, and the United States. This stagnation of military conflicts lead to a further stagnation of military adaption of said technology. When you are a hegemony of a corrupt empire that knows of no real threat you don't see the need to even keep current with the contemporary military technology. In fact, it reverted in many areas.
3. The Ming suffered massive famine, rebellion, and poor management of the Empire. This lead to massive rebellions that literally tore the state apart inviting the relatively minor threats to come in.
4. The Ming, stagnate, corrupt, and facing massive rebellions had no army to go up against the Manchurians, who came down into China and quickly swept the corrupt state away. There were remnants that stuck around, but in the end China fell to the Manchurians and they lead the Qing Dynasty.
5. The Manchurians did not propel the state forward. Instead, it merely conquered all the threats. The Mongols, Tannu Tuva, Central Asia, etc. They were all conquered. After that, there was peace. No wars to move things forward, no increase in technology. In fact, things further reverted.
6. The Qing became corrupt. It did not face Ming like rebellions yet, but it would in time.
>>61618441
7. When the Qing came into contact with Europeans, they snubbed them. They believed they'd attained perfection and harmony and did not need any of the barbarians' culture or technology. The Qing were still eager to take Europeans' money though. In fact they took so much gold and silver bullion that it led to hyperinflation.
8. The Qing continued to believe China was the center of the Earth and there was no way foreign states could possibly be her equal.
9. Lack of technological innovation--like the Ottoman Empire, the Qing did not encourage or promote science or learning. The highest calling in the land was to be a Mandarin bureaucrat and knowledge of classical literature held in more esteem than science, engineering, or medicine. Invading and subduing distant lands would disrupt social harmony and give you bad karma.
Only too little too late did China realize she was behind Western technology and needed to catch up with it and then the communist revolution effectively obliterated 3000 years of culture based around Confucian values. Today's China is an almost alien entity compared to what it once was.
>>61618441
>1. The Ming destroyed it's treasure fleet and turned inwards due to corruption. This is one of the factors leading towards the decline of Ming's projection of power. Without a fleet capable of exerting naval dominance over the Pacific it became a river and coastal fleet that never really ventured very far.
There was also the issue of realistic cost, the way the Ming went about with it's expedition was clearly not a profitable enterprise, where as the Western exploration were obviously mostly driven on by economic factors, the same factor also played a role in the Ming NOT continuing such endeavors.
>>61618441
>China had no organized states as rivals, just nomads and steppe people. In its entire 5000 year history, China has only fought a real armed conflict with three nation states, Vietnam, Japan, and the United States. This stagnation of military conflicts lead to a further stagnation of military adaption of said technology. When you are a hegemony of a corrupt empire that knows of no real threat you don't see the need to even keep current with the contemporary military technology. In fact, it reverted in many areas
Not so much that, but the type of enemies China was facing led to different military priorities. Nomadic horsemen require a different kind of warfare than Europeans who fought pitched battles with regular armies that had infantry, cavalry, and artillery, and which involved sieges of cities and fortifications.
The Ming did adopt certain European weapons, but only ones that were useful for their defense needs. For example, they adopted cannons from the Portuguese and Dutch but never seriously tried to use harquebuses.
>>61618605
You forgot about having a woman in charge.
Oh well, have fun with Hilary
>>61618817
FWIW, the Ming began to introduce cannons into the armed forces around 1540. Initially they copied large European types but 30 or so years later mostly moved to smaller sizes.
Qi Ji Guang, the general largely responsible for finally clearing out the Japanese Pirates, was later promoted to the Northern Garrisons against the Mongols in 1568, his manual should be highly believable and would be a good reflection of the deployment of cannons in the Ming during this period (it should be noted that there was no standard and Qi's troops are known to be on the very high side of gunpowder use, but clearly nothing he used was unknown to other Ming forces)
He separates his army into 3 Brigades, Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, all 3 were armed with quite a bit of gunpowder weapons, but for this exercise we'll just look at the cannons in general... obviously mostly in the artillery corp (the Cavalry corp however does have a assigned a few dozen light bombards as well)
Artillery Corp: Personal = 3109 men
Weapons deployed
Swirval Cannons : 256
Harquebus (it says Niao Chong, which may be harquebus or just better quality hand cannon) : 512
Rocket Arrows : 7780
Carted Rocket Arrows : 7780
Grand General Cannon (a type of large bombard) : 8
In another word, for a army of (all 3 Corp adds up to a bit less than 9,000 men, so the artillery corp being the biggest) . they usually deploy about 250+ light cannons, some 60 more light bombards (in the cavalry corp) and around 8 heavy bombards.
>>61618857
>Oh well, have fun with Hilary
Yeah I will be laughing when she's in a prison uniform. :^)
>>61611990
1. Yes, China has the most potential out of any country in the world
2. Yes, very happy.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Europe is a small place for many powers. Portugal and Spain being leaders of the first voyages across the Atlantic felt that the Iberian Peninsula is too small for them, but they didn't want to go to Africa because of Muslim inhabitants and the region is not rich in gold or anything of importance. They explore the unknown regions, which takes courage because of the need of expansion and the growing competition. Asia is too big for China and India to explore more, they just had enough. Situations affects the actions.
>>61619072
There were five main colonizers. Spain, Portugal, England, France, and the Dutch. The Dutch joined relatively late. Spain and Portugal's "colonialism" was born originally out of the intent to find a passage by way of water to China. Granted they had no idea where China was, but they wanted to go and find it. The Ottomans and the Venetians before them had their monopoly over the influx of Asian goods, the Spanish and Portuguese wanted to break it. Their coming to the New World was mostly an accident, but once the Spanish knew of the riches there they were quick to conquer and colonize the place. Portugal later had claims on Brazil. With them conquering everything in sight, England and France started their own endeavors. England became the most successful. France could math neither's success. The Dutch's scope was much more limited in the Americas, so they focused on the East instead.
The whole colonial era, the Americas, everything was brought on by a quest to make it to China. When they realized the Americas had wealth of their own, they wanted it for themselves. It also became a convenient place to get rid of people you didn't like. Australia was a penal colony. New Zealand was claimed simply because the English were scarred someone else would take it. South Africa was basically a halfway station to India.
>>61619152
As far as Africa's concerned, the states in North Africa were easily able to defend themselves from Europe in the 16th century. By the 19th century, they were ripe for the picking but not in the 16th. Even so, it took a major succession crisis for Morocco to finally lose her independence which remarkably wasn't until 1912. Morocco was also the first nation in the world to grant diplomatic recognition to the United States.
But most importantly, Africa was an inhospitable malaria pit full of savage tribes and dangerous fauna. Nobody before the late 19th century could venture into Africa and come back--you'd get killed by headhunters, eaten by crocodiles, or die of disease. All the same, the Europeans still colonized the coastline all through this time. Only after Louis Pasteur invented modern vaccinations in the 1860s was it finally possibly to conquer the interior of Africa.
The point is, the Americans had plenty of favorable, temperate areas that were suitable for European settlement and crops while Africa...did not.
>>61618086
visit SoCal sometime, koreans are everywhere.
at least they're more well behaved than black and mexican people, they don't join gangs and shoot people up.
>>61611990
1. God I hope not
2. No
China beating America is inevitable. You can't win so just give up already.
>>61620623
Get out of my land you british cocksucker.
>>61611990
>1. Will China replace USA as the #1 country?
Probably not, by as early as 2020-2025, china is expected to hit a Lewis Turning Point, whereas it'll suffer a labour shortage and wage increases. Chinas industrialized sector will slow down as cheap labour is no longer available and consequently it's growth too starts declining. Imo, the US's economy and military global presence isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
>>61611990
Insha'Allah
>>61620761
all of china is rightful british clay
>>61617939
among all the ameriturd's shitty blabber, finally an interassting answer, so youre saying it as is, or are saying ther ewill be an internet country in the future
No they will never be able to outmatch us politically or militarily unless another non-nuclear world war happens that allows them to establish themselves as such.
It doesn't make me sad because it won't happen.
>>61617939
really makes you think
>>61623237
Panamad
>>61623519
Don't respond to it. Just hide its posts and walk away.
>>61623519
Just ignore him he isn't ever going to make an intelligent comment or really anything beyond being buttmad at America
>>61611990
1. Not a chance in hell. Their growth is completely unsustainable. Not only from an economic point of view, but environmentally as well. They're going to run out of coal and steel, while Europe dives deeper into nuclear and renewable.
Have you even been to Beijing? It's ten times worse than I imagine London must've been 150 years ago. Continued Chinese growth is heavily reliant on the CCP's ability to placate people in the developed coastal regions to stop them from getting any funny ideas. Their aunts and uncles have all moved their money elsewhere, to Vancouver, to the US, to Australia - and if there's one thing they're all completely aware of, it's what those places offer in terms of civil liberties.
2. No. Why would that make me happy? The US is literally the perfect superpower for the information age.
>>61611990
#1 politicially?
Probably not.
#1 economically?
Yes.
Why?
Because the CCP isn't concerned with "establishing a global order". They aren't the Soviets trying to create global communism.
>>61612018
Current pace is set to close the gap by 2024.
>>61617799
>It is a XXI century nazism and racism against Polish people that is emerging in the West because we refuse being brown and muslim.
What in the actual fuck? Do people seriously believe /pol/ memes?
>>61612818
Ahh and you assume that means it is always less than reported?
Because IMF statisticians report that China's economy is actually larger than it states. They artificially hold down boom year's GDP to make bust year's GDP look better.
>>61614226
>no one intelligent
The IMF, World Bank, and US Fed?
>>61614260
What? It's been growing 7% or less since 2012.
>>61614404
>no Chinese person under 50 has been in an actual shooting war
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish
>>61613056
>Further, the USA is allies with basically all the other ASEAN countries and they will act in concert to check any attempts by China to assert their authority
Is that why they aren't even able to agree on a statement concerning the SCS, let alone actually send ships there?
>>61614226
>Once the TPP is signed there will be little reason to do business in china were your IP is likely to be stolen when it's cheaper and safer to do it in Vietnam or Philippines.
>safer
This is bait.
>>61624176
>responding to the Pole Stormfag
Nopenopenope.
>>61611990
1. ching chong pong
2. ring dong chong?
the fuck is "the no.1" anyway
economically? innovatively? culturally?geopolitically?
no matter what relevant countries try to do the future will become culturally and mentally diversity as fuck
no one will actually win
it will be fucking chaos with 10 fucking billion people
its fucking chaos. poverty, illegal immigrants, starvation, water crisises, aged people, polutions, and warmings everywhere
everywhere will be fucked up and "gaining power" as the center of the world as you redneckly imagine now with the 20th century corny way of thinking will be no more than useless crap in such a situation
just get ready to die in the hell
>>61617682
Don't listen to these guys
>>61618314
>>61618382
I was an expat living in China, and I'm moving back soon. China is pretty neato burrito as long as you go there expecting the bad things already. In my experience, Chinese people from Taiwan are just party poopers all the time. Listen to your Professor with a PhD, don't listen to two sore losers.
>>61615826
>They also border India which is more or less an English speaking country.
Much less
Fewer Indians know english than Chinese
>>61624544
will aussie be alrihgt
>>61616103
>Maybe if they can actually survive their huge economic bubble bursting.
Oh wow this meme again.
I could just as easily say America's bubble will pop considering our debt is higher than in 2007, and our housing prices are way higher.
>>61617040
>Another thing, their population is rapidly aging and they'll be one of the first nations in the world to begin ageing before reaching First World level development.
You seem to be forgetting about the entirety of Eastern Europe.
Which are still booming with literal decreasing populations.
Productivity matters more than demographics.
>>61617188
>Well let's start with a couple obvious ones; almost every urban area is blanketed with thick clouds of poison, half the population will likely keel over with cancer before reaching 60
You're literally retarded.
China's air pollution is falling at double digit rates. America, England, Italy, Japan were all in China's position once.
Furthermore, their cancer rate is lower than America's because "hey being obese is bad!"
Nice memes.
>>61624770
Their level of development is much higher, many of those countries could more or less be considered first world. Another thing, countries like Poland have huge untapped potential and are capable of supporting double the current population once they progress to a post industrial society. China is already way overpopulated for a start and has all but exhausted it's agricultural potential (at least for export). Many middle class Chinese refuse to buy Chinese grown beef/milk because of how unhealthy it is, choosing to import from countries like Australia instead.
>>61617931
Could I have some proofs?
>>61624770
Actually our population is stable thanks to immigration. It's only Poles, Slovaks, Huns, Belarussiand, Ukrainians and Baltdicks who are dying out (good riddance desu)
>>61624836
>America, England, Italy, Japan were all in China's position once.
First of all, yes they were polluted and their life expectancies at the time were in accordance much lower. Second, no country on earth has ever been as polluted as China (or India), they're in unexplored territory here.
>>61623017
You know that every first world country hit that point once as well?
>>61624054
>1. Not a chance in hell.
Ignore the IMF, World Bank, and United States Federal Reserve?
>Their growth is completely unsustainable.
(Citation needed)
>Not only from an economic point of view,
(Citation needed)
>but environmentally as well.
China's air pollution fell 16% last year after falling 10% in 2014.
>They're going to run out of coal and steel,
The world literally has too much of this. That's why China's economy is now slowing. They have no one to sell to excess supply to.
>while Europe dives deeper into nuclear and renewable.
Europe is fucking removing most of its nuclear, and China is the one with the most renewable energy in the world.
>Have you even been to Beijing?
Yes.
>It's ten times worse than I imagine London must've been 150 years ago.
Just 60 years ago nearly 40,000 Londoners died in the Great Smog.
>Continued Chinese growth is heavily reliant on the CCP's ability to placate people in the developed coastal regions to stop them from getting any funny ideas.
Okay? And the CCP gets high popularity ratings in China according to Pew Polls. The CCP is extremely capable of protecting itself.
>Their aunts and uncles have all moved their money elsewhere, to Vancouver, to the US, to Australia
No they have not. There's only $500 billion in Chinese foreign capital in these coutries, and almost all of it is Chinese Companies buying foreign companies.
>- and if there's one thing they're all completely aware of, it's what those places offer in terms of civil liberties.
Hmm. Is that why China's emigration rate is at an all time low? How horrible China must be for so few to be leaving in 2016?
>>61611990
1 yes
2 no
>>61625206
About the steel, they don't really need to sell it, they use it to barter for mining rights in African countries, and use the steel to create infrastructure in these countries.
Also,
>implying that the CCP tell people where to live and it's not the allure of factory jobs that make people migrate to the coastal cities.
The only time I remember the CCP moving a shit ton of people was for the three gorges dam.
Source: Nigga I've been living in China for 4 years now
>>61624885
What? No you stupid fuck.
Most of Eastern Europe is not first world and are as developed as China.
Romania is a great example of a booming economy and falling population.
>>61624905
Pic related?
Because you're wrong as of 2015-2016.
>>61624654
>Fewer Indians know english than Chinese
I highly doubt that.
5% of Indian males are completely fluent in English. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's approx. 33 million people. And that's only the males. If you add the 3% of women who are fluent, you get somewhere around 55 million people, which is more than the population of England.
And that's not even considering the number of people who know some English, which, if you've ever been to India, you'd know to be very very high.
>>61625206
>Ignore the IMF, World Bank, and United States Federal Reserve?
I don't doubt they have made those predictions, but would you mind giving a source or two?
>And the CCP gets high popularity ratings in China according to Pew Polls.
Of course it does. It's literally THE political party. I'm willing to bet rural regions make up most of that approval, but then again, I'd need the source itself to see that.
>>61620761
>being cucked this hard
>>61624959
>no country on earth has ever been as polluted as China (or India), they're in unexplored territory here.
>>61625206
http://fortune.com/2015/12/14/china-fake-economic-data/
https://next.ft.com/content/fa48bdc2-5b8b-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2
>>61625391
>calling other people stupid fucks
>>61611990
1. It allready is
2. No they took my job.. All the industries actually from here.... Those cheap yellow bastards
>>61625206
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/the-country-that-tricked-the-world/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economists-think-the-china-gdp-numbers-might-be-fake-a6699561.html
>>61624836
at that time we were so, there were not so much desert areas as china todays have.
the land will recover again thanks to the biological purification of nature, as long as it's not completely ruined.
namely,If once the land get deserted, their landscape, atmosphere and environment will never be back again.
>>61625206
http://fortune.com/2015/12/14/china-fake-economic-data/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-12/amid-chinese-gdp-suspicions-a-very-predictable-pattern-emerges
>>61624836
>>61624626
>>61625206
>>61625371
This is a CCP shill with a proxy.
>>61625371
I don't get what we are arguing over. I am dispelling China memes. That's all I am doing.
Nowhere have I stated that China tells people where to live. Chinese have voluntarily made 2015 the year with record low emigration rates.
>>61625542
>5% of males
And you assume the country with 50% female literacy is going to have a lot of fluent females?
China has 20% of the population fluent in English.
>source
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483762
>I need a source
http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/government-for-the-people-in-china/
Now would you mind producing some sources for this shitpost full of memes>>61624054
>>61625817
The sad thing is it probably is, they generate hundreds of millions of posts on social media every year and although it's mainly in Mandarin I'm sure they have an English department
>>61611990
1. No
2. Fuck no
>>61625619
To which claims do these correlate?
Fortune = Trash
FT = needs subscription
Get me better sources.
>>61625565
>wanting British cock in your ass this badly
>>61625682
Which claims do these sources correlate to?
Because I asked for two citations and NOTHING you provided answers those.
>>61612079
Lmao, I respect their rising lower, but you're delusional. There are so many reasons why western culture dominates... IN THE WEST.
>English is easy to learn
>Western culture promotes much freer expression
>Rooted in thousands of years of culture developing over time, China sadly lost a huge amount of culture in the communist purges
>Western culture blends together tons of cultures
>Western culture has already influenced Asia a ton
Again, I acknowledge China will rise. You thinking their culture will become dominant is laughable. There are so many factors that Chinese culture cannot surpass the West in
>>61625817
>muh proxy
>muh ad hominem
I could be fucking Xi Jinping. Does that change the facts?
I haven't made a single grammar mistake in all my posts. I am better at english than most of the "American" posts here.
Go fuck yourself.
>>61625932
Why would that change the facts I cite?
>>61625998
>Does that change the facts?
You haven't posted any so not sure how that's relevant
There's nothing left of China's traditional culture, especially not in the cities. Mao and then globalization took care of that.
>>61626106
yeah ok bud
>>61626042
Do you want to point out where I have made false claims?
Not every word I post has to have a citation. A lot of the time I simply state a fact without a citation because this is fucking shitpost 4CHAN and I'll get called a CCP shill either way.
>>61626159
He's sort of right though. You shouldn't just write off that massive loss of culture from the communist purges. It is a major part of Chinese history that saw so much destruction beyond a physical scale.
>>61626160
Given that you just admitted it in >>61625998...
>>61626159
not an arguement
50cent shills or those own the CCP membership are so active and outspoken today
>>61611990
If Japan got this area and USA did nothing, Asian Union might have became superpower by 1960s
>>61625682
>the independent
Lol figures an china hater would be quoting from a cuck paper
>>61626233
What? Fix your post.
>>61626273
There's literally no way to quantify culture.
>>61626291
Hahahaha
>mfw this thread
someone had too much adderall
hearing about China from Americans should always be taken with a grain of salt. Or any country threatened and made insecure by China's rise I.e. Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, India. It will be full of negativity and hostility, most of the time. Very biased.
>>61611990
yes
