94 replies to this topic

[Gan]

I agree with this, although the Americans didn't set out to be a world superpower. Their position in the lead up to both world wars was one of isolationism. Int he wake of the second world war, America found it had no choice to become a superpower because Britain was too indebted and too damaged, and the Russians were threatening what we nowadays call "western" polity. They became a superpower because they had no choice.

I think up to the world wars, America was both in an isolationist mood and expansion. Both ideals were in conflict and the American authorities were engage with both sides. The Americans fought with the Mexicans, Spaniards and Philippine Natives. The US acquired several island kingdoms, notably Hawaii but also several territories around the Pacific and Caribbean. They bought land from Russia, which resulted in Alaska, and much earlier, bought land from the French, which resulted in almost 1/3 of the country's current size. Along with many other conflicts with the Native American tribes, which came from both the civilian and military sectors.

Some Americans didn't want an empire but there were some who did.

A lot of the isolationist momentum was among a small group of intellectuals who were very expressive in their writings. It was true that around both World Wars, many Americans at that time did not see it as their struggle, but there were some who did. IMO, I think the biggest reason why the US didn't barge right into the fight(although there are rumors many people knew they will be brought into the wars one way or another) was that many Americans underestimated their capabilities to begin with. Especially with industry, resources and their relatively safe geographical location were advantages.

In some ways, yes, it's true that the US didn't set out to be "the Hegemon" and it was significantly the result of inheriting the responsibilities of the other empires. However, many Americans were already working on several forms of expansion before gaining their important roles in the world.

[Gan]

I'm not so sure about the spreading by numbers argument (although you admit that that's "controversial"), but I think your response is pretty reasonable overall. Thanks for the feedback.

It is controversial, but demographics do matter in several ways. Like I said, there are some truths in it. One of the biggest obvious reasons why Western European influence became so prevalent was that their diaspora around the world grew in very large numbers as well. In some places, members of their demographic group became the majority.

In some places, like those in Asia, the European diaspora was smaller but held many positions in power. In that situation, many elites in society will emulate those in power. Influence spread from that angle. However, and using a little imagination here, if for whatever reason, the smaller European diaspora didn't do that, there would have been very little chance of that type of dominance happening.

It's only one factor. Let's say for example, there is a small town of a 100 people, most who speak English, overtime had an influx of migrants who speak Mandarin. In the beginning, a small group of 1 or 2, maybe 5 Chinese speaking migrants won't do much in terms of cultural influence. If the numbers stay that low, the next generation will basically be absorbed by the ideals of their environment. Even if the migrants were isolationist, this type of absorption will happen in one way or another. Now, if the number of Chinese speaking migrants were to increase, let's say by 10 fold. Not just that, but if the migrants were increasing over a steady period of time, by both birth rates and immigration. The local population could only increase by a little, or not much at all. Overtime, in terms of language and assuming this little town had little interaction with other English speaking little towns (this part is very important), overtime, the town will lose itself out to the Chinese speaking migrants.

It's a small example, but can be translated in many different conditions.

The numbers argument has been used with other groups, such as the Spanish speaking Hispanic population in the US, the Muslim or South Asian populations in Europe, and other places. Even though population is only one factor, it will matter.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 04:03 PM.

[mohistManiac]

It is controversial, but demographics do matter in several ways. Like I said, there are some truths in it. One of the biggest obvious reasons why Western European influence became so prevalent was that their diaspora around the world grew in very large numbers as well. In some places, members of their demographic group became the majority.

In some places, like those in Asia, the European diaspora was smaller but held many positions in power. In that situation, many elites in society will emulate those in power. Influence spread from that angle. However, and using a little imagination here, if for whatever reason, the smaller European diaspora didn't do that, there would have been very little chance of that type of dominance happening.

It's only one factor. Let's say for example, there is a small town of a 100 people, most who speak English, overtime had an influx of migrants who speak Mandarin. In the beginning, a small group of 1 or 2, maybe 5 Chinese speaking migrants won't do much in terms of cultural influence. If the numbers stay that low, the next generation will basically be absorbed by the ideals of their environment. Even if the migrants were isolationist, this type of absorption will happen in one way or another. Now, if the number of Chinese speaking migrants were to increase, let's say by 10 fold. Not just that, but if the migrants were increasing over a steady period of time, by both birth rates and immigration. The local population could only increase by a little, or not much at all. Overtime, in terms of language and assuming this little town had little interaction with other English speaking little towns (this part is very important), overtime, the town will lose itself out to the Chinese speaking migrants.

It's a small example, but can be translated in many different conditions.

The numbers argument has been used with other groups, such as the Spanish speaking Hispanic population in the US, the Muslim or South Asian populations in Europe, and other places. Even though population is only one factor, it will matter.

I agree with this premise on some level. But putting up a Chinatown or Confucian institute everywhere isn't exactly a good way to go about things if you want to preserve a non colonizational attitude otherwise countries which are easy targets for the millions of Chinese will play the game of blockade either by electing officials which can be in essence against the agendas of the incoming population or treat them so kindly as to make them forget entirely about their background. They'll tell their friends and families back home how much they've changed and the people back home will think hard before letting everyone join the bandwagon. If your background changes before you even have a chance to become a source of influence then it doesn't necessarily have to be about where you actually come from just as long you come from somewhere on earth.

[Gan]

With all that I have said so far, the most realistic scenario in my mind about how far today's China's influence will be on the world is probably going to be not quite so prevalent. In the recent past, Western influence was in many ways forced on people. China today won't have that option. It might in certain places, however, that will be extremely limited.

The P.R.C. can do something different though. It can improve people's lives, either through technology or commercial interests. I'm guessing that is what China is banking on currently, in terms of influencing the world. Other than forcing people, western influence also gain a benevolent role by providing new medicines, more comfortable ways of life and set out new ideals that vastly improve many peoples living standards. It's hard to say what the future will be. I have over a dozen different scenarios of how a non-western country can do that.

For now, unless I hear or read something totally radical that's never been done or said before, what China and other powerful non-Western nations can do is basically keep on improving the current systems being use. For example, until someone builds another form of transportation (and one that uses different forms of measurement and designing than the ones being taught in schools today), the only thing that China can do is basically keep on working with the current forms of transportation. Make the automobiles, planes and ships better, in terms of efficiency or packaging, etc. Make a good brand.

If that doesn't make sense, please let me know. I have to keep reminding myself that not everyone is thinking the same things as I am. Also, what I type may not be exactly the same message if I were to say it in person.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 04:48 PM.

[Gan]

I agree with this premise on some level. But putting up a Chinatown or Confucian institute everywhere isn't exactly a good way to go about things if you want to preserve a non colonizational attitude otherwise countries which are easy targets for the millions of Chinese will play the game of blockade either by electing officials which can be in essence against the agendas of the incoming population or treat them so kindly as to make them forget entirely about their background. They'll tell their friends and families back home how much they've changed and the people back home will think hard before letting everyone join the bandwagon. If your background changes before you even have a chance to become a source of influence then it doesn't necessarily have to be about where you actually come from just as long you come from somewhere on earth.

Speaking of that, I was going to attend a meeting near where I live that involved a debate over the Confucius program. There's a school district near my place that is facing two different but slightly related issues. One, the district is planning on starting a program with the Confucius institutes where the schools can teach the Chinese language, history, philosophy, art, etc. Some parents and adults who have no kids got upset and were pretty heated since the funding is going to come from the Chinese government. The opponents think it will brainwash kids. However, at least from what I heard, most of the parents supported the program, so the opposition voices were kind of muted. From my perspective, if the program isn't forced on the students, I don't see any problem with it.

The other issue was that there were accusations that private trips to China were arranged with the school board members, using Tax payer's money. The District attorney is looking into that, and it will be later before everyone knows what went on from that controversy.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 04:58 PM.

[mohistManiac]

Actually I have a little backtracking to make when I said that the Chinese could forseeably run into a blockade of sorts when there are political machinations against their arrival in other countries beyond China. This doesn't mean they are out to get you racially it just means that for all sorts of pet peeve differences they can get you to change to see their perspective more often than you can get them to see your perspective. For example Chinese restaurants lets say you want to open a Peking Duck restaurant in the US but the safety regulators will not allow you to use open oven with real charcoal but instead you will have to use electric ovens which makes the duck taste completely different. Little things like that I suspect which can interrupt the flow of your environments, habits and tastes and to prevent your businesses from thinking alongside stronger ambitions. Most of the times they will get you treated nicely up to the point where you reach the glass ceiling of politics.

Gan further mentioned other ideas which sound really good however something which builds upon the original technology of planes and ships and packaging would have to be also extremely revolutionary otherwise it won't gain the attention that your country alone is pioneering the way for everyone else to follow. If it isn't perceived in this fashion your country would only be an early adopter. For example Chinese planes won't dominate the industry unless for example they can run completely silent and get to destination in a quarter of the time, same thing for ships etc. Things that improve the quality of lives for people would also have to be in consideration of the great majority of people's lives like in Japan they are introducing the concept of robotics to help with the elderly now that I can see as helping Japan become influential in the long run.

Edited by mohistManiac, 23 February 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[mohistManiac]

Speaking of that, I was going to attend a meeting near where I live that involved a debate over the Confucius program. There's a school district near my place that is facing two different but slightly related issues. One, the district is planning on starting a program with the Confucius institutes where the schools can teach the Chinese language, history, philosophy, art, etc. Some parents and adults who have no kids got upset and were pretty heated since the funding is going to come from the Chinese government. The opponents think it will brainwash kids. However, at least from what I heard, most of the parents supported the program, so the opposition voices were kind of muted. From my perspective, if the program isn't forced on the students, I don't see any problem with it.

The other issue was that there were accusations that private trips to China were arranged with the school board members, using Tax payer's money. The District attorney is looking into that, and it will be later before everyone knows what went on from that controversy.

I heard they are like the English schools that are propped up in places where Americans and Europeans plan to to a lot of business by taking their families along with them. Since their kids are learning in an environment that is replicated out of the one where they originally belonged to they would be better suited to go back to their home country for future career goals and makes it easier for them to back assimilate. I assume that's why there were many grown ups that were worried because they'd be sending kids to programs that could easily brainwash their kids about the attractiveness of Chineseness although speaking on the macro level since these schools are nowhere as common as the universal English schools surrounding them their influence is negligible and yet people would be right to fear them. They should be no different from private schools.

[BaiYongYi]

It is controversial, but demographics do matter in several ways. Like I said, there are some truths in it. One of the biggest obvious reasons why Western European influence became so prevalent was that their diaspora around the world grew in very large numbers as well. In some places, members of their demographic group became the majority.

In some places, like those in Asia, the European diaspora was smaller but held many positions in power. In that situation, many elites in society will emulate those in power. Influence spread from that angle. However, and using a little imagination here, if for whatever reason, the smaller European diaspora didn't do that, there would have been very little chance of that type of dominance happening.

It's only one factor. Let's say for example, there is a small town of a 100 people, most who speak English, overtime had an influx of migrants who speak Mandarin. In the beginning, a small group of 1 or 2, maybe 5 Chinese speaking migrants won't do much in terms of cultural influence. If the numbers stay that low, the next generation will basically be absorbed by the ideals of their environment. Even if the migrants were isolationist, this type of absorption will happen in one way or another. Now, if the number of Chinese speaking migrants were to increase, let's say by 10 fold. Not just that, but if the migrants were increasing over a steady period of time, by both birth rates and immigration. The local population could only increase by a little, or not much at all. Overtime, in terms of language and assuming this little town had little interaction with other English speaking little towns (this part is very important), overtime, the town will lose itself out to the Chinese speaking migrants.

It's a small example, but can be translated in many different conditions.

The numbers argument has been used with other groups, such as the Spanish speaking Hispanic population in the US, the Muslim or South Asian populations in Europe, and other places. Even though population is only one factor, it will matter.

When you say: the town will "lose itself to the Chinese speaking migrants," what do you mean? The Chinese language would become the lingua franca? If so, what if the town were in, say, Germany and there was, say, a law stating that all street signs and official business was to be conducted in German only? If you mean that locals (say, again, Germans) would eventually adopt Chinese practices, then: how and why? People in that town would suddenly see the merits of reading Chinese literature or contemplating Chinese history just because there were more Chinese than locals? How would that happen?

In argumentative logic, there's a fallacy known as 'appeal to numbers.' One million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Well, they can.

I think that influence has to do with a lot more than numbers.

Edited by BaiYongYi, 23 February 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[Gan]

When you say: the town will "lose itself to the Chinese speaking migrants," what do you mean? The Chinese language would become the lingua franca? If so, what if the town were in, say, Germany and there was, say, a law stating that all street signs and official business was to be conducted in German only? If you mean that locals (say, again, Germans) would eventually adopt Chinese practices, then: how and why? People in that town would suddenly see the merits of reading Chinese literature or contemplating Chinese history just because there were more Chinese than locals? How would that happen?

In argumentative logic, there's a fallacy known as 'appeal to numbers.' One million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Well, they can.

I think that influence has to do with a lot more than numbers.

Well, I think the first thing I should say that ,and I have repeated it a few time already, that demographics is just one factor. It will matter in one way or another. That pretty much coincides with your last sentence.

I will try to clarify my earlier points, but it kind of is already simplified. My post was about language, as a small example. I am assuming many things, but the main point was that if more people who speak a certain language (group A) was to move into a place that speaks another (group B ) , and if Group A came in large numbers which kept on growing through birthrates and immigration while Group B doesn't increase that much or none at all, then the language and to a certain extent the customs of Group A will become so abundant that the original Group B won't have any room to express their ways, at least not in a dominating fashion. Again, assuming this in an ideal situation, which is why I mentioned that assuming if the little towns had no interaction with other little towns with similar backgrounds. I probably shouldn't have said losing out, but more like one group of language speakers will be overwhelmed by the other.

The town can try to put limits, or say only in public places you can only speak the local language. However, if a significant number (it has to be a significant number) of your own population speaks a particular language other than than locals, in one way or another, the place will have to accommodate that situation.

This is just about language. I only gave a small example. Of course, if a million people believe in a certain thing, it does not mean it must be right. This isn't a contest. I was just saying that one group of language speakers will overwhelmed the other through their population. Sorry, if I said losing out implied it was a type of contest.

There really isn't any right or wrong answers. If there were more Chinese than locals (or any other demographic group you can think of), for example, they will learn about their own history and other cultural topics. Simply because there are so many of them. Actually, it doesn't have to be a large number of people, because minorities can learn about their own culture in any situation as long as they want to. As for seeing the merits, they may see some good and see some bad. Or some lazy students won't see anything at all. It's not all or nothing. There are real life examples of this, almost every diverse urban center on Earth has experiences like I just describe.

Again, I only gave a small example.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 06:25 PM.

[Gan]

I'm trying to think what else I can say to clarify my statements. Life is pretty complicated, and I understand there are exceptions to almost everything.

I did mention in another post that in some places, a minority was able to exert their influence on the majority by being in positions of power with the elites of the society emulating them.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 06:37 PM.

[BaiYongYi]

No, no worries Gan. I get what your saying, I think, and it seems pretty reasonable. Yes, and things are very complicated - extremely. One thinks of certain terms to use when trying to make a point, and then what those terms could mean in different contexts, etc., etc., etc. and then you (or at least I) have to reach for the Aspirin bottle.

[baibushe]

There really isn't any right or wrong answers. If there were more Chinese than locals (or any other demographic group you can think of), for example, they will learn about their own history and other cultural topics. Simply because there are so many of them. Actually, it doesn't have to be a large number of people, because minorities can learn about their own culture in any situation as long as they want to. As for seeing the merits, they may see some good and see some bad. Or some lazy students won't see anything at all. It's not all or nothing. There are real life examples of this, almost every diverse urban center on Earth has experiences like I just describe.

Again, I only gave a small example.

Actually, it's very rare for immigrant populations to keep a strong hold on their culture (In Canada and the U.S. at least, I'm not as familiar with the situation in the rest of the world). There may be enclaves where immigrants from the same country tend to settle, and the neighboring populations might exchange some cultural ideas such as food, but for the newcomers to be able to exert more influence on the original inhabitants means that they must swamp the native population within a few generations. It is uncommon for immigrants after the 2nd generation to be able to speak their ancestor's language fluently. Even in California, where the Hispanic population is so large and more arrive every day, the grandchildren of immigrants are rarely able to speak more than a few sentences of Spanish. If the newcomers do not beat out the locals through sheer population or social influence very rapidly, they will end up adopting the dominant culture.

[Gan]

Actually, it's very rare for immigrant populations to keep a strong hold on their culture (In Canada and the U.S. at least, I'm not as familiar with the situation in the rest of the world). There may be enclaves where immigrants from the same country tend to settle, and the neighboring populations might exchange some cultural ideas such as food, but for the newcomers to be able to exert more influence on the original inhabitants means that they must swamp the native population within a few generations. It is uncommon for immigrants after the 2nd generation to be able to speak their ancestor's language fluently. Even in California, where the Hispanic population is so large and more arrive every day, the grandchildren of immigrants are rarely able to speak more than a few sentences of Spanish. If the newcomers do not beat out the locals through sheer population or social influence very rapidly, they will end up adopting the dominant culture.

I know what you mean. People do adopt the ways of their environment, unless they really make up the majority. In my post, I was trying to use a small example (albeit with many assumptions and within certain conditions) of what I mean that demographics matter.

I should clarify on that post again. I live in an ethnic enclave now, but I grew up in a place that wasn't. In the ethnic enclave, there are some things that stand out compared to a place that wasn't. For example, there's more of the newcomer language. One doesn't have to learn it, but then since it's so visible and available in many place of the community (such as food, real estate, body shop, etc.), there is a stronger tendency to know something about that newcomer community (could be history, not just the language) than living in a place that is not an ethnic enclave. Of course, this will depend on the individual, some don't have to live in those diverse areas to want to learn about different cultures. Some people who live in ethnic enclaves may detest their diverse surroundings. Works the opposite way. However, I'm just trying to say that the ethnic enclave environment does rub off on people in a unique way.

An example I could think of where the newcomers pretty much swamp the locals, would probably be in the early history of the US. Where the colonials, western settlers and other migrants from Europe did just that. In the case of language, there were a lot of non-English speakers, but it did took a while for everyone to come to that situation. In the midwest, at least back in the 90s from what I remember, there were some towns where there are some elderly locals (born and raised there) still spoke the non-English European languages when their ancestors arrive nearly a century ago. Even though they are natural born citizens, some spoke English with an accent.

Edited by Gan, 23 February 2011 - 11:52 PM.

[Gan]

No, no worries Gan. I get what your saying, I think, and it seems pretty reasonable. Yes, and things are very complicated - extremely. One thinks of certain terms to use when trying to make a point, and then what those terms could mean in different contexts, etc., etc., etc. and then you (or at least I) have to reach for the Aspirin bottle.

I go off in many tangents as well. A lot of times, and I am so guilty of this, I keep forgetting that typing is not the same as saying it out loud. So, many apologies if my posts sound like a bunch rambling words.

[BaiYongYi]

Actually, it's very rare for immigrant populations to keep a strong hold on their culture (In Canada and the U.S. at least, I'm not as familiar with the situation in the rest of the world). There may be enclaves where immigrants from the same country tend to settle, and the neighboring populations might exchange some cultural ideas such as food, but for the newcomers to be able to exert more influence on the original inhabitants means that they must swamp the native population within a few generations. It is uncommon for immigrants after the 2nd generation to be able to speak their ancestor's language fluently. Even in California, where the Hispanic population is so large and more arrive every day, the grandchildren of immigrants are rarely able to speak more than a few sentences of Spanish. If the newcomers do not beat out the locals through sheer population or social influence very rapidly, they will end up adopting the dominant culture.

I would tend to agree with this. I think it's pretty much over by the second generation, unless you're living in an ethnic neighbourhood, etc.

I'm the author of the book, by the way, if you didn't figure that out already. If you happen to have any questions, I'd be happy to field them. Cheers,

Bai Yongyi