This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Mandate of Heaven predates Confucianism, it being what the Zhou used to justify their overthrow of the Shang (at least in classical understanding).
I’m not sure that Europe was too different, at least until recently (historically speaking)? Perhaps the Chinese did go super-super-hard into what (iirc) Leibniz calls “practical science”, but I don’t get the feeling that Europe was consciously emphasizing science and technology until at least mid-modern history.
Honestly I would date it to the Ming. The Qing in many ways just continued with Ming policy, and the Ming were often a basketcase, just not so obviously; and while Ming society was undoubtedly commercial, much policy reversed previously industry- and merchant-friendly tendencies in the Song. The Qing may have simply done the best they could with the existing trajectory and the limited knowledge at the time.
Though Kangxi declaring that land taxes would never be raised after him, among other things, didn’t help.
Good post.
I was sort of thinking of people like Henry the Navigator and Leonardo da Vinci. European sovereigns would fund all kinds of technology to get ahead - they wanted to make money, thrash their enemies, obtain land. Zheng He is the obvious counterexample yet his voyages seem more political to me. They sailed around the Indian ocean showing the flag and scaring the hell out of the natives, brought back some animals but nobody was terribly interested in profit, conquest or expansion. It was more like the moon landings, a cool way to show off Chinese power rather than achieve anything substantive. Of course, they had other problems to deal with on the steppe front.
Likewise, I recall some of China's tributaries eagerly wanting to have more tribute missions because they'd actually get more in gifts than they 'paid' in gifts. It wasn't even an extractive scheme (though there were all kinds of gradations in the tributary system). They were interested in maintaining social order internationally and domestically, there were huge redistribution systems to take money from the rich agricultural regions to fund nomad defense in the harsh interior.
A better parallel may be the Song dynasty from 970-1279, then; quite a lot of innovation happened during that time, and had a serious threat in the Liao, then the Jin.
Even the Ming were happy to get their hands on superior European designs, though, after they started lagging behind - the idea of the Chinese being unaware that the frontiers of technology were passing them by isn’t really true, at least for the elite.
Surprisingly, there are examples of “military conquest” during the treasure cruises. Off the top of my head, the voyages deposed a Sinhalese king and a Samuderan usurper. Of course, while they then installed someone favourable to the Chinese, the treasure cruises largely then fucked off and left the territories alone. On the whole I think your point is well made, however - only to add that they were thought as useful to signal that China was returning to form after a century of Mongol rule, and once the voyages had made their point the balance of utility of the voyages shifted pretty dramatically for the court (new emperor being against it also did not help).
The sea ban and deconstruction of the treasure ships also meant that China went from being (iirc) the greatest naval power in the world to being almost entirely land-bound in its aspirations. A lot of shipbuilding knowledge was lost in the 15th century in China. While it might’ve made sense at the time, it was also an enormous self-own in the long run.
That might be another sort of thing to look at as for why China didn’t manage to stay ahead.
Indeed!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link