Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > True. Yet Chinese ethnocentrism is strictly cultural. The Chinese empires were > not imperialistic is the Western sense of taking riches from the periphery to the > core, it was always the reverse. > > I guess this is the official line on Chinese imperial history. Since this is a list dealing with economics, if you have evidence to the contrary, it would be helpful to cite it. I have read most history classics written in Chinese and have not found any evidence of dynastic China expanding for economic gain. Chinese expansion was mostly motivated by security concerns. Chinese dynasties discovered that it was more effective to incorporate marauding neighboring tribes attracted by China's riches than to fight defensive war against them. In fact, when British traders first arrived in China in late 18th century, they were shock that China had no need or desire for foreign trade. Chinese official posture was that the central kingdom had everything it needed and that if the British desired some civilization, China would be please to send a delegation bearing gifts to England as gesture of good will. But the Chinese empire had no interest in anything Britain had to offer in a form of trade. That eventually led the British to introduce opium from India into China. China trade for one whole century after consisted of the British (and some Americans, China Clippers, among whom was the Delano family of FDR fame) smuggling in opium in exchange for Chinese porcelain. When the Chinese government began a war on drugs, the British launched the Opium War and took Hong Kong after victory. > > The Rape of Nanking may be racist given that period of Japanese history having > been dominated by Fascist ideas imported from the West. But racism certainly was > not the sole cause. The Rape of Nanking was a single event, though not the sole > atrocity, in one period of history. the atrocities were more in the nature > > of war crimes. There was some truth in the observation that the atrocities were > order as a propaganda strategy to obliterate further Chinese resistance, and not > because the victim were Chinese. Japanese occupation is other cities, Hong Kong, > for example, was much more benign. > > What can I say? Is this the new official Japanese interpretation of WWII taught to > high school students? > No, the new official Japanese version denied it took place. Far be it for me to excuse the Rape of Naking, but if your point is that in-group atrocity excuses racism, you are making a very weak argument. Henry C.K. Liu
