[Whsie]

Another reason I didn't see mentioned was because Qianlong closed off the trades that could have potentially modernized China. Furthermore, his military spending left the country with an empty treasury. It's also because of this empty treasury that the Qing Empire didn't have the MONEY to modernize.

[twofish]

Whsie, on Dec 29 2006, 08:56 AM, said:

Another reason I didn't see mentioned was because Qianlong closed off the trades that could have potentially modernized China. Furthermore, his military spending left the country with an empty treasury. It's also because of this empty treasury that the Qing Empire didn't have the MONEY to modernize.

Just to have a basis for discussion. I get my views of Qing history from things like the Cambridge History of China, as well as authors like Madeline Zelin (for economics), Benjamin Elman (for intellectual history), and Jonathan Spence. Also Qing history is changing very rapidly. Part of the reason that a lot of historical opinion has shifted in the last generation is that for the first time, people are seriously examining things from the point of view of the Qing dynasty. The archives that let people do this have were closed off until the 1980's.

The other thing I've tended to do is that traditional Chinese history writing puts a lot of emphasis on the "moral character" of key individuals. While this is a useful approach sometimes, this neglects that people's choices are sometimes limited.

Problems:

1) Qianlong *didn't* close off trade. Yes the English has problems selling clothes in China, but the English have problems selling clothes today. The reason for this is that there was a major population explosion in the 18th century creating lots of cheap labor.

2) Also, there are more basic reasons for an empty treasury. China simply did not have an efficient system of local taxation until about 1993, and taxation in China is *still* a major problem. In the Qing, Chinese taxes came from land which were capped and didn't grow as the population and military needs grew. Revenues from customs were off-limits as they were handled by foreigners.

3) The other problem is we can ask what would have happened if Qianlong *didn't* expand Chinese power into Xinjiang and Tibet. I would argue (and people can disagree) that if Qianlong hadn't have done that, the Russians would have taken over Xinjiang like they did Kazahstan, and the British would have taken over Tibet like they did India. I don't think this would have left China in a better position.

[Yun]

Quote

1) Qianlong *didn't* close off trade. Yes the English has problems selling clothes in China, but the English have problems selling clothes today. The reason for this is that there was a major population explosion in the 18th century creating lots of cheap labor.

This is correct. All the Qianlong Emperor did was restrict European trading vessels to a single port, i.e. Canton. This was in response to complaints from Canton that Ningbo was stealing their business. The British merchants didn't like it, but there were no other restrictions placed on sea trade by non-Europeans.

Quote

Revenues from customs were off-limits as they were handled by foreigners.

I believe this was only after the China Maritime Customs Service was established after the Opium War, with Europeans rather than Chinese heading the Service.

Quote

The other problem is we can ask what would have happened if Qianlong *didn't* expand Chinese power into Xinjiang and Tibet. I would argue (and people can disagree) that if Qianlong hadn't have done that, the Russians would have taken over Xinjiang like they did Kazahstan, and the British would have taken over Tibet like they did India. I don't think this would have left China in a better position.

It might also have led to an independent Tibet and East Turkestan today. Unlike the British and Russian/Soviet empires, the Qing empire remains largely intact even though the Qing dynasty is long gone. But it could still have gone the other way if the Xinjiang warlord Sheng Shicai had not switched his allegiance from the Soviets to the KMT in 1942 ( http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sheng_Shicai ), and if the PLA had not marched into Tibet in 1950.

[T98G]

twofish, on Dec 29 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

The basic problem with the traditional view is that if you look at the history, people didn't divide themselves simply into conservatives and reforms. You find people who are conservative in one time and place, become reformers a few years later, and then back again. In particular, if you look at the 1911 revolution, you find some of the strongest "reformers" and "revolutionaries" among the "conservative" gentry and bureaucracy, and "conservative" gentry backing retention of the Confucian examinations while at the same time building railroads, starting factories, and creating provincial assemblies.

The other thing that I've noticed is that people keep on talking about "failure to modernize" meanwhile you have railroads and factories sprouting left and right. Look at the Sino-Japanese War. The Japanese navy crushed the Chinese fleet, but China didn't have a fleet of ironclads twenty years ago.

The question is not "failure to modernize" but rather "failure to modernize quickly enough."

Which is not good enough, because a majority of them still prefer not to have major reforms. If they follow Japan's example they could have modernise and please don't say Japan is small as an excuse. Japan is small, but also has a smaller government and bureaucracy system than China.

Empress Cixi also happens to be a conservatives, as I said we can thank her and her Confucian scholar gentry supporters for the slow modernisation. Also reformers are reformers, conservatives are conservatives. Reformers want reforms and conservatives don't want reforms and prefer to follow the old ways. These conservatives basically change their tone after the revolutionary won.

If the Qing dynasty can put their mind to it, than China can modernise as well same as USSR under Stalin and China under Mao.
Also these "conservative" gentry were also the ones responsible for the warlords because of their support of them.

Modernisation also does not mean build new things or have new infrastructure. It also means reforms at the top to support these Modernisation. Take for example the fleet you mention.

That fleet was lost due to poor backing of the government, also the fleet was the work of one reformer. Because it was his work only, the government gave him poor support. Even worst, the other fleets did not support it. If there was a navy ministry, then defense would be more better coordinated and better supported, but there wasn't any.

Most of the modernisation such as railroad in Beijing were finally build after the boxer uprising, after most of the high ranking "conservative" gentry and bureaucracy were executed for the support of the boxer. But even then Cixi still took a slow approach to reforms.

These nations you mention the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, they got overthrown after the first world war and don't exist anymore. The Qing dynasty suffer the same fate, but in 1911 so basically any nation that don't do enough moderation will suffer the same fate.

This post has been edited by T98G: 29 December 2006 - 11:56 PM

[twofish]

Yun, on Dec 29 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

This is correct. All the Qianlong Emperor did was restrict European trading vessels to a single port, i.e. Canton. This was in response to complaints from Canton that Ningbo was stealing their business. The British merchants didn't like it, but there were no other restrictions placed on sea trade by non-Europeans.

One problem in discussions about Chinese trade is that people confuse the Ming era "hai jin" restrictions with later restrictions. The "hai jin" restrictions were removed by the mid-16th century, and are irrelevant to Qing dynasty history. Also, there seems to be some confusion at times between Chinese policy and Japanese polify.

Quote

I believe this was only after the China Maritime Customs Service was established after the Opium War, with Europeans rather than Chinese heading the Service.

True, but that was at the critical period in which the Qing needed large amounts of money for military modernization.

Quote

It might also have led to an independent Tibet and East Turkestan today. Unlike the British and Russian/Soviet empires, the Qing empire remains largely intact even though the Qing dynasty is long gone. But it could still have gone the other way if the Xinjiang warlord Sheng Shicai had not switched his allegiance from the Soviets to the KMT in 1942 ( http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sheng_Shicai ), and if the PLA had not marched into Tibet in 1950.

I think the Xinjiang situation is somewhat more likely, since you had Soviet sponsorship. By 1950, the British had left India, and there was nothing to keep the PLA out of Tibet. On the other hand, had the British defeated the Qing armies in the early 1900, Tibet could have ended up like Burma. There are a lot of other what-if's. If the revolt of the Three Feudatories had been successful, then China would have ended up looking like the Arab world.

On the other hand, one really weird what-if would have been if Toyotomi Hideyoshi had successfully "conquered the world" (i.e. Ming China). In this situation the Japanese would have been what the Manchus were, but instead of a continental empire expanding into Central Asia, you would have had a maritime empire extending into southern Asia.

[twofish]

T98G, on Dec 29 2006, 10:45 PM, said:

Which is not good enough, because a majority of them still prefer not to have major reforms. If they follow Japan's example they could have modernise and please don't say Japan is small as an excuse. Japan is small, but also has a smaller government and bureaucracy system than China.

If it is one thing that I think we've learned in the twentieth century, it is that it is very difficult to transplant political systems. There are so many differences between Japan and China, and I don't think we really understand enough about economics and politics to say even now for certain what are the major important differences.

Quote

Empress Cixi also happens to be a conservatives, as I said we can thank her and her Confucian scholar gentry supporters for the slow modernisation. Also reformers are reformers, conservatives are conservatives. Reformers want reforms and conservatives don't want reforms and prefer to follow the old ways. These conservatives basically change their tone after the revolutionary won.

I think that is much too simplistic, and does not accurately reflect the debates of the late-Qing. Just to give an example, one of the big debates was between Han and Song Learning. The Han Learning wanted to purify the Confucian classics of Buddhist corruption. This put them at odds with the dominant Song Learning school. Does that make them reformers or conservatives? Also, I'm a Ph.D. astrophysics and the reason I'm interested in physics, law, history, and politics is that I'm a direct intellectual heir of the Han Learning school. Does this make me a reformer or conservative?

Quote

If the Qing dynasty can put their mind to it, than China can modernise as well same as USSR under Stalin and China under Mao.

China didn't modernize very well under Mao. The other thing that my reading of history suggests is that people who think that the problem is that the people in power are bad, generally look at the situation too simplistically. Look at Iraq or Russia.

Quote

Also these "conservative" gentry were also the ones responsible for the warlords because of their support of them.

No. By and large they weren't. The warlords arose after central authority collapsed after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai.

Quote

That fleet was lost due to poor backing of the government, also the fleet was the work of one reformer. Because it was his work only, the government gave him poor support. Even worst, the other fleets did not support it. If there was a navy ministry, then defense would be more better coordinated and better supported, but there wasn't any.

Because it is very difficult to create a modern millitary. You just don't snap your fingers and have a modern military come into being. It takes decades to build a modern navy.

Basically, I look at the world a lot different because I live in 2006 and not 1906. I've seen the difficulty of modernization in a way that people in 1906 weren't aware of. The problems that the United States are having in Iraq and Afghanistan today are *exactly* the same one's that the Qing dynasty had, and if we are having so much trouble with modernization today, I'm more willing to be sympathetic to the Qing.

Quote

These nations you mention the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, they got overthrown after the first world war and don't exist anymore. The Qing dynasty suffer the same fate, but in 1911 so basically any nation that don't do enough moderation will suffer the same fate.

But the Qing dynasty didn't suffer the same fate. The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary completely fell apart after WWI, whereas the Qing empire remained more or less intact. The main reason the Qing Empire remained more or less intact is that the Qing dynasty in the early 19th century created a "common literate culture" which later became the basis of Chinese nationalism.

There is a problem with thinking that the trouble is that the basic problem is with old conservatives which you overthrow and replace with new reformers, in that it often turns out that the new reformers have no idea how to handle the situation. (Witness Gorbachev and Iraq.)

[T98G]

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

If it is one thing that I think we've learned in the twentieth century, it is that it is very difficult to transplant political systems. There are so many differences between Japan and China, and I don't think we really understand enough about economics and politics to say even now for certain what are the major important differences.

Not really, both are eastern culture except China is bigger. China is also abused earlier than Japan and exploited, but Japan had an emperor that want reforms. China also had an emperor that want reforms until Cixi imprison him.

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

I think that is much too simplistic, and does not accurately reflect the debates of the late-Qing. Just to give an example, one of the big debates was between Han and Song Learning. The Han Learning wanted to purify the Confucian classics of Buddhist corruption. This put them at odds with the dominant Song Learning school. Does that make them reformers or conservatives? Also, I'm a Ph.D. astrophysics and the reason I'm interested in physics, law, history, and politics is that I'm a direct intellectual heir of the Han Learning school. Does this make me a reformer or conservative?

You are avoiding the question, Han Learning and Song Learning has nothing to do with modernising China. What China needs to do is adopt to the modern world. And learning old teaching has nothing to do with it, especially backward Confucian teachings.

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

China didn't modernize very well under Mao. The other thing that my reading of history suggests is that people who think that the problem is that the people in power are bad, generally look at the situation too simplistically. Look at Iraq or Russia.

But China did modernise and regain back to being a power under Mao.

That's because the people in power are the ones responsible for the country, so they got blame if anything goes wrong and if they don't do anything. In Iraq the new government has an infamous reputation for being a puppet government of US, it is also ineffective in stopping the killings.

What is your Russia example ?

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

No. By and large they weren't. The warlords arose after central authority collapsed after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai.
Because it is very difficult to create a modern millitary. You just don't snap your fingers and have a modern military come into being. It takes decades to build a modern navy.

And after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai the scholar gentry class support the warlords with influence and fiances. You are also avoiding the question, because the Beiyang Fleet was created in 1871 giving it plenty of time.

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

Basically, I look at the world a lot different because I live in 2006 and not 1906. I've seen the difficulty of modernization in a way that people in 1906 weren't aware of. The problems that the United States are having in Iraq and Afghanistan today are *exactly* the same one's that the Qing dynasty had, and if we are having so much trouble with modernization today, I'm more willing to be sympathetic to the Qing.

Not really, its because of cultural difference. Iraq and Afghanistan culture are too backward, China in 1906 is also backward because of Confucian thinking. Once Mao got rid of this thinking than China is able to progress.

twofish, on Dec 30 2006, 04:14 PM, said:

But the Qing dynasty didn't suffer the same fate. The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary completely fell apart after WWI, whereas the Qing empire remained more or less intact. The main reason the Qing Empire remained more or less intact is that the Qing dynasty in the early 19th century created a "common literate culture" which later became the basis of Chinese nationalism.

There is a problem with thinking that the trouble is that the basic problem is with old conservatives which you overthrow and replace with new reformers, in that it often turns out that the new reformers have no idea how to handle the situation. (Witness Gorbachev and Iraq.)

Oh really , you mean it didn't got overthrown. I really think you are not using common sense on this.

Are you a Confucian supporter by the way.

Also Iraq conservatives is overthrown by reformers?

In Russia, Gorbachev was betray by Yeltsin and who had some CIA support otherwise his reformers would have saved the USSR.

This post has been edited by T98G: 30 December 2006 - 04:08 AM

[twofish]

T98G, on Dec 30 2006, 01:26 AM, said:

Not really, both are eastern culture except China is bigger. China is also abused earlier than Japan and exploited, but Japan had an emperor that want reforms. China also had an emperor that want reforms until Cixi imprison him.

China and Japan were very different in a lot of ways. Also the Meiji emperor wasn't that important. What was critical was the genro. In the case of the 1898 Revolution, you should probably read Sterling Seagrave's "Dragon Lady" and more recent (post-1980) histories, such as the Cambridge History. Most current historians don't vilify Cixi in the way that people in the 19th century did. The basic argument that Seagraves uses is that the reformers in 1898 wanted to do things in an impractically short period of them, and that most of the reforms were instituted in the next several years anyway.

Also, the problem with "good guys" and "bad guys" is that the New Army Units by and large supported Cixi, and Kang Youwei was pretty obviously influcened by "New Script Confucianism."

Quote

You are avoiding the question, Han Learning and Song Learning has nothing to do with modernising China. What China needs to do is adopt to the modern world. And learning old teaching has nothing to do with it, especially backward Confucian teachings.
But China did modernise and regain back to being a power under Mao.

This is where the conversation gets interesting since we are obviously talking about the present. My view is that Mao was a disaster, and China main priority now needs to create legal systems and institutions. The mistake that China made in the early 20th century was to destroy classical learning, since classical learning (both Western and Eastern) is essential for creating social systems. When people wrote the US Constitution, they talked about the Greeks and the Romans. Han learning is why I became an astrophysicist.

Quote

And after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai the scholar gentry class support the warlords with influence and fiances. You are also avoiding the question, because the Beiyang Fleet was created in 1871 giving it plenty of time.

After the end of the Confucian examinations in 1905 and the destruction of the provincial assemblies in 1913, there was no more scholar-gentry class. This was bad, because without a scholar-gentry class, a lot of the glue that kept Chinese society together disappeared.

Also, you are missing the point of my original statement. You keep denying that the Qing dynasty modernized, but you keep talking about the Qing dynasty modernizing. The essential question is not "why did the Qing dynasty not modernize" but rather "why did the Qing dynasty not modernize fast enough to avoid the defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895?" Part of it was that the Qing dynasty refused to create a unified military command, but they did so because of lack of finances and fear of that the millitary would take over. That actually *did* happen both in China and in Japan, and in both cases military control of the government was a disaster.

Quote

Not really, its because of cultural difference. Iraq and Afghanistan culture are too backward, China in 1906 is also backward because of Confucian thinking. Once Mao got rid of this thinking than China is able to progress.

Mao destroyed the Chinese economy during the 1950's and 1960's. It was only after getting rid of Maoist thinking and going to "seek truth from facts" which was based on Han Learning, that China was able to progress. Mao did do one good thing and that was to create a strong government structure that was able to drive foreign invaders from China and allow for peace and stability, but he immediately started wrecking the country afterwards.

Quote

Are you a Confucian supporter by the way.

Absolutely. Confucianism has a lot of things that are very, very good. One is that you are always questioning yourself and your beliefs. Mao's mistake was not that he got the wrong answer (everyone gets the wrong answer), but that he was too certain that he got the right answer.

Also, I think that Confucianism is good for democracy. If the problem is that the conservatives are bad and the reformers are good, then the solution is to get rid of the conservatives. Trouble with that is that they the reformers start getting rid of each other. Han Learning (which is different from Song Learning) argues that since only very, very few people are sages, it's necessary to politely debate these issues.

Quote

In Russia, Gorbachev was betray by Yeltsin and who had some CIA support otherwise his reformers would have saved the USSR.

That's the problem with "reformist thinking". It follows a pattern

1) Reform is good!!!! Conservatives are bad!!!!!
2) Yaahhhh!!!! We won the revolution. Things will be perfect!!!!
3) Wait!!!! Things aren't perfect, what's wrong!!!!
4) There must be *enemies of the people* and *secret agents* among us which are destroying the perfect situation.
5) Well lets go find and destroy them!!!!

This happened with Mao. This happened with Stalin. I saw this happen with the overseas democracy supporters in Tiananmen. It ends with secret police, cultural revolutions, and people killing each other. It gets worse because once you have a cultural revolution, things get even worse, which causes more effort to find enemies.

The basic problem is the assumption that the problem is because of "bad people" when in fact the problems are much more complex. If you replace the "bad people" with the "good people" then things won't improve. Look at China, 1911 revolution happened, Qing was gone, and it took another 70 years before China had any sort of real economic growth. I don't blame Sun Yat-Sen for waiting to overthrow the Qing. I know things from history that he didn't.

This post has been edited by twofish: 30 December 2006 - 11:18 AM

[twofish]

The revolutionaries of the 1900's looked at Japan as a model for what China should be. However, after seeing the military take over and lead Japan into a stupid and self-destructive war, I don't think that is such a good thing.

The model I use for what China should have done in the late-19th century is Thailand. In 1932, the military had a coup, but they kept the monarchy, and in a lot of key situations (such as last year), the existence of the monarchy kept things from totally falling apart. In the case of China, provincial assembiles had been convened, and a national assembly would have been convened by 1913 if the Wuhan uprising had not taken place. Once you had a national assembly within a constitutional monarchy, that would have been the focus of unity, and would have kept the military under control.

Without a monarchy, then to keep things from falling apart, you need to create a "civic religion" like the United States does with its Constitution, and this is why "rule of law" and "constitutional thinking" is very important in future PRC development. Classicial learning is also very important, because the points of what creates and doesn't create a good government were outlined by both Confucius and Aristole several centuries ago.

[Yun]

Quote

Just to give an example, one of the big debates was between Han and Song Learning. The Han Learning wanted to purify the Confucian classics of Buddhist corruption. This put them at odds with the dominant Song Learning school.

I am very impressed by your being able to relate your profession as an astrophysicist to the Han Learning tradition. But I'm afraid your characterization of the Han Learning vs. Song Learning debate seems to be incorrect. Essentially, it was Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism (i.e. Song Learning) that elevated the Four Books and reinterpreted them in certain ways to purge influences from Daoism and Buddhism, using the argument that Confucianism has been distorted ever since the Han period. Han Learning was a reaction against this blanket dismissal of Han scholarship. Han Learning scholars attempted to restore the importance of the Five Classics which had been eclipsed by the Four Books, and also criticized the liberties that Neo-Confucians like Zhu Xi took in interpreting ancient texts to suit the Neo-Confucian agenda. Furthermore, they were able to prove that some of the classic texts that Song Learning used to justify its doctrines were really post-Han forgeries, the most prominent such forgery being the then-standard version of the Old Text Shangshu.

[twofish]

Yun, on Dec 31 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

I am very impressed by your being able to relate your profession as an astrophysicist to the Han Learning tradition. But I'm afraid your characterization of the Han Learning vs. Song Learning debate seems to be incorrect. Essentially, it was Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism (i.e. Song Learning) that elevated the Four Books and reinterpreted them in certain ways to purge influences from Daoism and Buddhism, using the argument that Confucianism has been distorted ever since the Han period. Han Learning was a reaction against this blanket dismissal of Han scholarship. Han Learning scholars attempted to restore the importance of the Five Classics which had been eclipsed by the Four Books, and also criticized the liberties that Neo-Confucians like Zhu Xi took in interpreting ancient texts to suit the Neo-Confucian agenda. Furthermore, they were able to prove that some of the classic texts that Song Learning used to justify its doctrines were really post-Han forgeries, the most prominent such forgery being the then-standard version of the Old Text Shangshu.

Correct. And Han Learning scholars such as Dai Zhen then accused Zhu Xi of being overly influenced by Buddhism and Daoism and in order to recover the "pristine copies" of the ancient classics, the Han Learning scholars then turned to evidential research, which meant careful research into philology and language in order to remove the Buddhist contamination. This lead them to research astronomy and mathematics which they believed would be the key to deciphering the ancient classics and return China to the pre-Han golden age. Until the Sino-Japanese War, they were convinced that the science and technology that they were seeing coming from Europe was merely "lost ancient Chinese knowledge" that the Europeans had merely refined. After 1895, this belief was unsupportable, but you see the academies in Zhejiang and Jiangsu which had been founded to conduct evidential research reorient themselves to continue research in astronomy and mathematics, and around this time you have the first foreign students to Japan and the United States, which after a generation or two, leads to me.....

So there is a pretty direct line of transmission between the Han Learning school and me. The irony of the school is that they methods that were using to reconstruct the pre-Han "golden age" by demanding strict observation and evidence (i.e. scientific investigation) would later demonstrate that the golden age that they were looking for, never existed, and that would cause a crisis that would effectively end Han Learning in the 19th century.

At the same time, even though the philosophy of the Han Learning school undermined their project, they do form most of the basis for how I look at the world. I reject the rationalism of Zhu Xi and the possibility of sage enlightenment by pure thought, and the believe that reason should overcome emotion in all cases. Instead, my philosophy emphasizes the need to "seek truth from fact," emphasizes moral uncertainty, and dismisses the possibility of moral perfectability. It also explains my interest in astronomy, law, and history, which are all efforts to understand the cosmic order.

Because I come from Han Learning rather than Song Learning, I also am at odds with those that would elevate Confucianism to a national religion or the "New Confucianism" which attempts to create a "secular religion." I'd argue that by emphasizing the Song Learning/Buddhist need to go beyond feeling to rational thought that the "New Confucianism" creates a philosophy which is detached from the human experience.

There are a lot of differences between what I believe and what the Han Learning scholars believed. I'm nowhere as hostile toward Buddhism as they were. I live in a world where China is a nation-state is a rapidly globalizing world rather than a "world civilization." I'm far more interested in physics and engineering than they were. And most importantly, I realize that their original goal won't work. However, the basic philosophy of the evidential school outlives their original goals and leads naturally to the epistemology and methods of science in much the same way that medieval scholastics in Europe moved toward the philosophy of science, notwithstanding the fact that it destroyed their original goal (which was to mathematically and logically prove the existence of God).

[Rong Qin Wang]

Zunjing de China History Forum members,

Hmm, this is an interesting question; however, there already are many threads in CHF regarding it. Hence, I will just briefly summarize my own rationales.

Unfortunately, the Qing government did have the background thinking that China was still the most powerful country in the world. Of course, during his later years, Emperor Qian Long became so absorbed in his own achievements that he imposed the close door policy. This certainly was the roots of Qing’s decline; however, Qing Emperors after Qian Long could have fixed this problem.

Now back to the original question; why could not China modernize? The answer is rather simple. China had a much more difficult time to modernize because of its large size. It is really hard to form unity among such huge populations. However, this was just a slightly small problem. The biggest obstacle would be the oppositions of modernizing China among the elites. In other words, China did not want to modernize. I really don’t know how civilians felt regarding modernizations. However, with China’s absolute monarchy, the Emperor would play a decisive role in instigating any reforms. As we are all aware of, Emperor Guangxu was merely a figurehead, while Empress Cixi was the de factor ruler of China.

Of course, conservatives would never accept Western ideas since it would not only take away their power, but also threaten their harmonious life styles.

Meanwhile, Empress Cixi had nothing else in mind other than hanging onto as much power as possible. She would support whoever she felt posing less of a threat for her absolute authority.

Emperor Guangxu was a forward thinking leader, who tried to reform the government to save the dynasty from collapsing and preserve some old traditions. Seeing these new reforms as a threat to her power, Empress Cixi ruthlessly crushed most of the new policies and executed all the officials, who instigated them.

Therefore, how could China have modernized with the de facto ruler opposing to all the reforms?

Well, we cannot really be too hard on China since reforms can be a hard concept to grasp as well as being a difficult thing to impose. I believe Howard Fu had the perfect quote!

Japan was such a rare case since Emperor Meiji had the determination to modernize, while exposing all the absolute power necessary for inciting reforms. In other words, Emperor Meiji had the forward thinking mind of Emperor Guangxu, while also possessing the absolute authority of Empress Cixi. Hence, Japan was in a much better position to modernize than China.

[Rong Qin Wang]

Zunjing de Twofish,

Hmm, I really have my own view on Empress Cixi. I certainly don’t look at her with the traditional Confucian view, where women in power will constitute to troubles and disasters for the Empire and its people. The way I look at Empresses in power is, as long as a woman can do a man’s job better than the man himself, then she has every right to demonstrate her ability. However, Empress Cixi definitely did a terrible job at ruling China! Hence, she deserved the majority of the blame for all of China’s failures.

The Qing Dynasty was certainly very backward! It may be more advanced than the Ottoman and Austria-Hungary Empires; however, it was extremely embarrassing for such a large country like China to have such a low rate of modernization.

I do agree it was much harder for the Qing Dynasty to modernize due to an empty treasury. The low treasury was a result of Emperor Qian Long’s military campaigns and his frequent visits to the South. Also, Emperor Qian Long’s mistrust in He Shen was a crucial factor.

It is clearly very difficult to transplant political regimes. In my opinion, both reformers and conservatives were extremists. In the political world, no pure extremists can truly survive. The reformers could never be successful without some help from the conservatives. I personally believe that if the government can find a rare balance between these two groups, the modernization would have be very successful. During the early 1900s, it was ultimately the responsibilities of the leaders to realize that reforms were necessary. If Empress Cixi did the best she could, then I would certainly give her some praises, but she really could have done much better.

You are right; even though we have read many books and sources regarding the late Qing Dynasty, I cannot really have a true understanding on what it was really like back then.

[T98G]

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

China and Japan were very different in a lot of ways. Also the Meiji emperor wasn't that important. What was critical was the genro. In the case of the 1898 Revolution, you should probably read Sterling Seagrave's "Dragon Lady" and more recent (post-1980) histories, such as the Cambridge History. Most current historians don't vilify Cixi in the way that people in the 19th century did. The basic argument that Seagraves uses is that the reformers in 1898 wanted to do things in an impractically short period of them, and that most of the reforms were instituted in the next several years anyway.

You forgot about the boxer uprising, most of the reforms will easily be implemented after it

It appear you are using 80s western history books to reinforce your findings

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

Also, the problem with "good guys" and "bad guys" is that the New Army Units by and large supported Cixi, and Kang Youwei was pretty obviously influcened by "New Script Confucianism."

I take it you didn't read history properly, because these New Army Units betray the Qing dynasty in the end, also Kang Youwei wants "fast" reforms and not the slow one advocated by traditional Confucian.

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

This is where the conversation gets interesting since we are obviously talking about the present. My view is that Mao was a disaster, and China main priority now needs to create legal systems and institutions. The mistake that China made in the early 20th century was to destroy classical learning, since classical learning (both Western and Eastern) is essential for creating social systems. When people wrote the US Constitution, they talked about the Greeks and the Romans. Han learning is why I became an astrophysicist.

You mean modernisation should focus on Han learning, it would explain why reforms were that slow. And Mao did create legal systems and institutions, it looks as if you did not read the history of PRC. And destroying Classical learning was a good one because it allow China to get rid of backward thinking. Greeks and the Romans advocate democracy and republic learning what does Han learning have feudalism.

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

After the end of the Confucian examinations in 1905 and the destruction of the provincial assemblies in 1913, there was no more scholar-gentry class. This was bad, because without a scholar-gentry class, a lot of the glue that kept Chinese society together disappeared.

No, you are making this up. All because there is no Confucian examinations, doesn't mean there are no more power Confucian.

China got well with no scholar-gentry class now (so did Japan and South Korea) and will get well even with no scholar-gentry class, it also not surprising you are advocating the scholar-gentry class.

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

Also, you are missing the point of my original statement. You keep denying that the Qing dynasty modernized, but you keep talking about the Qing dynasty modernizing. The essential question is not "why did the Qing dynasty not modernize" but rather "why did the Qing dynasty not modernize fast enough to avoid the defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895?" Part of it was that the Qing dynasty refused to create a unified military command, but they did so because of lack of finances and fear of that the millitary would take over. That actually *did* happen both in China and in Japan, and in both cases military control of the government was a disaster.

I didn't say there was no major government modernizing, now it appears you are making this up "why did the Qing dynasty not modernize fast enough to avoid the defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895?". Because this is just not about Sino-Japanese War in 1895, this was about modernising to avoid the 100 yrs of humiliation.

It appears you pushing you agenda.

Further more Japan's military did not took over until the great depression. As for the Chinese military coup it was because of Yuan shikai.

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

Mao destroyed the Chinese economy during the 1950's and 1960's. It was only after getting rid of Maoist thinking and going to "seek truth from facts" which was based on Han Learning, that China was able to progress. Mao did do one good thing and that was to create a strong government structure that was able to drive foreign invaders from China and allow for peace and stability, but he immediately started wrecking the country afterwards.

He also got rid of powerful Confucian and their supporters, and where is your proof that CCP use "seek truth from facts" which was based on Han Learning after Mao. All I see is Chinese leader using small capitalist reforms as well as leagist learning of reward and punishment after Mao.

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

Absolutely. Confucianism has a lot of things that are very, very good. One is that you are always questioning yourself and your beliefs. Mao's mistake was not that he got the wrong answer (everyone gets the wrong answer), but that he was too certain that he got the right answer.

Nice to know you declear you agenda this openly. Oh and Confusian also appers to have Mao mistake "that he was too certain that he got the right answer."

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

Also, I think that Confucianism is good for democracy. If the problem is that the conservatives are bad and the reformers are good, then the solution is to get rid of the conservatives. Trouble with that is that they the reformers start getting rid of each other. Han Learning (which is different from Song Learning) argues that since only very, very few people are sages, it's necessary to politely debate these issues.

Still defending Confucianism I not even going to bother with this one so I will show you a link

http://www.chinahist...showtopic=15552

You should be happy though

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

That's the problem with "reformist thinking". It follows a pattern

1) Reform is good!!!! Conservatives are bad!!!!!
2) Yaahhhh!!!! We won the revolution. Things will be perfect!!!!
3) Wait!!!! Things aren't perfect, what's wrong!!!!
4) There must be *enemies of the people* and *secret agents* among us which are destroying the perfect situation.
5) Well lets go find and destroy them!!!!

This happened with Mao. This happened with Stalin. I saw this happen with the overseas democracy supporters in Tiananmen. It ends with secret police, cultural revolutions, and people killing each other. It gets worse because once you have a cultural revolution, things get even worse, which causes more effort to find enemies.

The basic problem is the assumption that the problem is because of "bad people" when in fact the problems are much more complex. If you replace the "bad people" with the "good people" then things won't improve. Look at China, 1911 revolution happened, Qing was gone, and it took another 70 years before China had any sort of real economic growth. I don't blame Sun Yat-Sen for waiting to overthrow the Qing. I know things from history that he didn't.

So why doesn't this theory work with the revolutionaries in America in 1775. The truth fact is reforms is always needed when there is a bad policy or bad situation that needs reform to improve it.

As long as the government is going well and the situation is good there would not really be a need for reforms. The problem in Tiananmen is that the students went reforms that were not needed in a good situation, and so the government for the good of the country did the correct thing.

[T98G]

twofish, on Dec 31 2006, 03:30 AM, said:

The revolutionaries of the 1900's looked at Japan as a model for what China should be. However, after seeing the military take over and lead Japan into a stupid and self-destructive war, I don't think that is such a good thing.

The model I use for what China should have done in the late-19th century is Thailand. In 1932, the military had a coup, but they kept the monarchy, and in a lot of key situations (such as last year), the existence of the monarchy kept things from totally falling apart. In the case of China, provincial assembiles had been convened, and a national assembly would have been convened by 1913 if the Wuhan uprising had not taken place. Once you had a national assembly within a constitutional monarchy, that would have been the focus of unity, and would have kept the military under control.

Without a monarchy, then to keep things from falling apart, you need to create a "civic religion" like the United States does with its Constitution, and this is why "rule of law" and "constitutional thinking" is very important in future PRC development. Classicial learning is also very important, because the points of what creates and doesn't create a good government were outlined by both Confucius and Aristole several centuries ago.

Not all revolutionaries look at Japan as an example, Sun Wen use the United States as an example China should go to.

You are also forgetting the King influence in these coup in Thailand

See the link I provided to see if Conformism is good for democracy.

I also see you like to use presentism