13 replies to this topic

[stardave]

I read that the history of China has been a process of cycle of fragmentation and then unification, and from looking at the map, this is true somewhat up to the Yuan dynasty. But it appears after Yuan, after each dynasty has collapsed, it didn't break off into smaller kingdoms, instead it is almost directly being replaced by another Dynasty just as large as the one it replaced.

So have this cycle ended? If so why do you think this is? Better technology and infrastructure that is able for faster communication? Or was there some kind of cultural change during and after Yuan, that gives people are more consciousness that made them stick together?

[mohistManiac]

It appears as though Chinese peopled have always behaved in a way which shows that they frequently fragment and reunite. But it has to start someplace. People should take into account pre Qin history and the fact that new peoples during this time have continually entered into China to create new dynastic periods. The Shang for example seem to be descended from eastern territory and the Zhou from western territory. The situation was not so rebellious. During the very first period which witnessed many rise of kingdoms within China and culminated into the warring states period, the Zhou simply tried uniting the plains cultural region and failed. Then the Qin sort of stood on the threshold but also failed. It took the Han dynasty to unite China. My point is that if there wasn't a united China to begin with how would one even speak on terms of fragmentation? Later on when other states arose from beyond the borders of the "official" Chinese state and encroached upon the territory of China that also doesn't appear to be a fragmentation scenario either because other states were created from outside. True fragmentation occurred during the juncture at three kingdoms period.

[stardave]

So what about now? Will China continue to fragment into smaller nations at next chaos? Or will it be just replaced by another entity that still maintain all the lands.

[Hooly]

I read that the history of China has been a process of cycle of fragmentation and then unification, and from looking at the map, this is true somewhat up to the Yuan dynasty. But it appears after Yuan, after each dynasty has collapsed, it didn't break off into smaller kingdoms, instead it is almost directly being replaced by another Dynasty just as large as the one it replaced.

So have this cycle ended? If so why do you think this is? Better technology and infrastructure that is able for faster communication? Or was there some kind of cultural change during and after Yuan, that gives people are more consciousness that made them stick together?

If you look at world history, Unity is hard, and Fragmentation is the rule ... this is one of the unique features of Chinese civilization that seeks Unity over Fragmentation. It doesn't have anything to do with technology or communication ... but with ideology. One Han Volk, One Han Civilization, One Son-of-Heaven. I've always wondered why there isn't one Arab Nation encompassing territory from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, why there isn't an Anglosphere already encompassing America/Canada/Australia/NZ/UK, or a Greater Hispania encompassing Spain and Latin America. The reason is they don't have that Chinese obsession of Unity, given philosophical backing by the sages of the Hundred Schools of Thought.

[Hooly]

So what about now? Will China continue to fragment into smaller nations at next chaos? Or will it be just replaced by another entity that still maintain all the lands.

On the contrary, China is on the path to reincorporate lost territory and influence, ... first Tibet, then Macau and HK, then Korea and Japan, then South East Asia all the way to the Straits of Malacca ... public opinion in Taiwan has tipped in favor Reunification, or as they say in Mandarin, Anschluss.

i.e. war with America is inevitable at this point.

Edited by Hooly, 07 June 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[mohistManiac]

One could say that it is in a state of fragmentation. The existence of provincial units with as much economic power on par with individual nation states proves China is a conglomeration of smaller distinct regions that have their own command structure but there is little chaos.

[mohistManiac]

On the contrary, China is on the path to reincorporate lost territory and influence, ... first Tibet, then Macau and HK, then Korea and Japan, then South East Asia all the way to the Straits of Malacca ... public opinion in Taiwan has tipped in favor Reunification, or as they say in Mandarin, Anschluss.

i.e. war with America is inevitable at this point.

I know you take great pride in being Chinese but please with all due respect this is not what we are here for. We are talking about the nature of split up within a Chinese political historical perspective. My argument is there has never been so much split up as has been perceived simply because there are different levels of unity. When people recognize they are unified they usually have certain preconceived notions in place. However for China culture is a big margin of what it would like for itself to be considered unified. I argue that because of self deception China doesn't realize that in its past it had not been as unified as it would like to appear in the modern age where everyone can just learn off the news who the space shuttle belongs to etc. etc.

[f0ma]

Or was there some kind of cultural change during and after Yuan, that gives people are more consciousness that made them stick together?

Maybe it's because China started opening up more to the world after this, with more foreign powers making their presence known. I wouldn't go as far as saying the Chinese then had a 'common enemy', but perhaps they were less inclined to infighting when they realised the world wasn't limited to them and their immediate neighbours. Just a thought.

[stardave]

One could say that it is in a state of fragmentation. The existence of provincial units with as much economic power on par with individual nation states proves China is a conglomeration of smaller distinct regions that have their own command structure but there is little chaos.

I don't think this is the case, I know that the party chiefs for each province in China have a lot of freedom to do whatever he wants, mostly economic freedom, but they do not have a permanent power base there. They don't pass on their title and offices to their children, in fact I know for sure they get reshuffle around very often. And any official that goes too far from the central policy will get demoted or in worse case, punished (Bo Xili)

[stardave]

If you look at world history, Unity is hard, and Fragmentation is the rule ... this is one of the unique features of Chinese civilization that seeks Unity over Fragmentation. It doesn't have anything to do with technology or communication ... but with ideology. One Han Volk, One Han Civilization, One Son-of-Heaven. I've always wondered why there isn't one Arab Nation encompassing territory from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, why there isn't an Anglosphere already encompassing America/Canada/Australia/NZ/UK, or a Greater Hispania encompassing Spain and Latin America. The reason is they don't have that Chinese obsession of Unity, given philosophical backing by the sages of the Hundred Schools of Thought.

Yeah I know what you mean, and if you read history, for much of the Arab world, there were often many empires that did united almost all of the middle east lands, It started with the Achaemenid Empire which at that time was actually much more advanced than China, then you had many Islam Caliphates that hold up the unity all the way to WW1, but the problem is, all that was holding them up was by force, the populations was never assimilated into one culture, or the conquering class.

I think the closest it come for the Western world was the Roman republic/empire, it was actually somewhat controlled by a centralized power (still far less centralized by contemporary Han China), and they did very much share a common culture as well, the people were actually proud to be part of the Roman system. But that also fall apart.

Can you tell me exactly which school of thought that give the Chinese people the sense of unity?

[mohistManiac]

I don't think this is the case, I know that the party chiefs for each province in China have a lot of freedom to do whatever he wants, mostly economic freedom, but they do not have a permanent power base there. They don't pass on their title and offices to their children, in fact I know for sure they get reshuffle around very often. And any official that goes too far from the central policy will get demoted or in worse case, punished (Bo Xili)

There still exists a system of legacy in place even if the very higher ups rotate. People native to their own provinces would likely purchase land closer to home and reinvest the wealth of the region in similar ways that have been providing it in the first place. These domain expertise are responsible for creating part of the differences in the modern age identities. Shanghai area remaining a financial center while Guangdong area acquires a strong legacy for manufacturing wares. No doubt the Beijing area will continue to be a draw for politically minded intellectuals. While Chinese provinces aren't individual states their wealth far exceeds the share in some poorer parts of the world. Differing economic models which occur in one part of China but not another make these places appear as though they differentiate between themselves as states. If there is rupture in the future I would think it likely to start as a result of these widening political economic fissures or just economic fissures but it is also a possibility the regions grow closer as they strive to become more networked to each other.

[stardave]

There still exists a system of legacy in place even if the very higher ups rotate. People native to their own provinces would likely purchase land closer to home and reinvest the wealth of the region in similar ways that have been providing it in the first place. These domain expertise are responsible for creating part of the differences in the modern age identities. Shanghai area remaining a financial center while Guangdong area acquires a strong legacy for manufacturing wares. No doubt the Beijing area will continue to be a draw for politically minded intellectuals. While Chinese provinces aren't individual states their wealth far exceeds the share in some poorer parts of the world. Differing economic models which occur in one part of China but not another make these places appear as though they differentiate between themselves as states. If there is rupture in the future I would think it likely to start as a result of these widening political economic fissures or just economic fissures but it is also a possibility the regions grow closer as they strive to become more networked to each other.

Agree with you, but we are talking about different things, I am talking about do these local officials have the power to control their hometown politically, economically and militarily to the point where they can each break off from the central government and declare independence, or seek to take over the central government with coup. And I would say.. not a chance. Until maybe the next cycle of chaos that was similar to the decline and fall of Qing.

The ability to accumulate wealth at your home town does not mean you can accumulate power to the point where you became a local emperor.

[mohistManiac]

Agree with you, but we are talking about different things, I am talking about do these local officials have the power to control their hometown politically, economically and militarily to the point where they can each break off from the central government and declare independence, or seek to take over the central government with coup. And I would say.. not a chance. Until maybe the next cycle of chaos that was similar to the decline and fall of Qing.

The ability to accumulate wealth at your home town does not mean you can accumulate power to the point where you became a local emperor.

Sure an emperor would probably be the way to do it in traditional terms. The recognition of identity can also be produced by what locals believe is to be their shared wealth in resources both physical and intellectual.

Edited by mohistManiac, 20 June 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[stardave]

Sure an emperor would probably be the way to do it in traditional terms. The recognition of identity can also be produced by what locals believe is to be their shared wealth in resources both physical and intellectual.

So we agree with each other the local leaders in China does not have the absolutely freedom for them to do whatever they want, aka raise military, collect own tax and keep it 100%, go directly against the policy of central government or have it is own foreign policy etc...