When I got here I saw the girzel thread below, shuddered and then read the article. It is actually well worth reading. It gives a real flavour of going into the great unknown from the perspective of one side, with some pretty decent insights from the other side. I think.
“Grand Choulaa” - this looks to me like the locals taking the piss.
Initially Macartney did not realize that he was supposed to prostrate himself before the emperor. Nor, when it was explained to him, was he willing to do so. Despite his great admiration for the prosperity and civilization of the Qing Empire, he viewed Qianlong as an equal to the king of England
Macartney would never have really considered Quianlong as equal to the King of Britain (England and Scotland became Britain a little earlier). I am also sure that Quianlong's people would have had exactly the same notion in reverse for exactly the same reason.
Both sides came out of the meeting thinking the other was a bunch of arrogant pricks, and both were kind of right. For the Chinese, they were astonished that a foreign power had the gall to ask for favors while at the same time demanding special treatment without clear justification. For the British, they were astonished that the Chinese were so short-sighted and resolute in their view that they were justifiable global hegemons. The difference is that the British came away realizing that they didn't actually have to put up with it, not with their military prowess.
Undoubtedly, Macartney wanted equality only in the polite diplomatic fiction sense; his demand to have a Chinese official reciprocate to a portrait of King George III had no other purposes than to exalt the achievement of equality to the Chinese. Even had the Qing acquiesced, it would likely have only been a prelude to future downgrading of status.
>Macartney would never have really considered Quianlong as equal to the King of Britain (England and Scotland became Britain a little earlier). I am also sure that Quianlong's people would have had exactly the same notion in reverse for exactly the same reason.
Only one side would be justified, being an ancient civilization (as opposed to a recent-ish tribe that entered written history only after the Roman conquest), and the biggest economy of the world for many millennia...
Neither side would be justified making someone prostrate themselves in front of anyone.
Heads of states should be treat of equals, no matter if one country has been around for a couple of thousands of years, or only a bit over one thousand. Also whether it is a stagnant declining empire being left in the dust by other countries, or one of those countries leaving everyone else in the dust, sound also not matter.
The idea that all states (or their heads) are nominally equal is pretty recent. It came from the treaty of Westphalia, ~1650. I'm no expert, but I think that model wasn't really applied to states outside Western Europe until ~20th century.
>Heads of states should be treat of equals, no matter if one country has been around for a couple of thousands of years, or only a bit over one thousand.
"It's weird been British in 2018, we are now a small damp mostly irrelevant island in the North Atlantic."
It's always been a bit weird being British - get used to it! As to irrelevance, you might like to reflect on the fact that around two billion people across the world watched a recent marriage in this parish.
Yes it is a bit damp here but on the bright side the weather rarely tries to kill you, nor does the land and nor does the flora and fauna. The nearest thing to a volcano is Castle Rock in Edinburgh OK - Dartmoor int al was formed from a pluton but that was some time ago as well. Our earthquakes are on the sad end of the log base seismic scale. The last tsunami (controversial but there was a major flood) might have been near Bristol and S Wales 100s of years ago. We have precisely one poisonous snake - the adder and they are very rare and keep well away and probably wont even kill you anyway (but it will smart a lot). We have a few poisonous plants but again you would have to be pretty stupid. Funnily enough I had to warn a Floridian about our stinging nettles - they laughed. They stopped laughing after brushing past a patch on a run.
Weird: yep. Irrelevent: no more than anyone else. Damp: I prefer "moist".
Given that “China” is an amorphous and ill-defined entity historically and the Quynh Empire only started in 1644... you’re on pretty shaky ground here.
At best you can say that there were civilizations in the China area. But it wasn’t until ~220BC that the area was any sort of unified civilization (under the Qin dynasty).
While that is a couple of hundred years before Britons were unified under the Romans it still makes the Chinese at that time “a recent-ish tribe that entered history only after the Qin conquest”.
At least as much entering history as you appear to be crediting the British Isles - given that it was well known back to 1600BC for its strong tin economy and trading culture. That’s not even including the massive amount of known, detailed, and extensive historical evidence of civilization back to 4400BC (Stonehenge is ~3300BC, FYI).
Now were these things like post-Roman Britain? No, but neither was pre-Qin “China”, instead being a collection of warring competing civilizations... much like the Celtic states in England.
Long story short: you’ve bought into the mythology of China.
>But it wasn’t until ~220BC that the area was any sort of unified civilization (under the Qin dynasty).
We have excellent arts and artifacts and poetry and philosophy of great sophistication from China centuries before that. Whether that was a single state or different kingdoms is as beside the point, as whether e.g. some British poets are English, others Scottish, etc.
Absolutely - I'm not denigrating what the people and civilizations in that area did, I'm saying that the previous statements have heavy qualifiers.
I mean we have records and arts and artifacts in England before it was called that and unified back to the 6th century BC. We have evidence of massive sophisticated construction back to 3300 BC!
But are those "British"? If not then the point about the Qin dynasty is valid. If so then Britain has the same storied history as China (though not the volume of artifacts). It can't be selective standards for each.
While this article puts a lot of weight in the formal displays of submission, the denial of the English ambassador in following them and the irritation that caused, I cannot help thinking there could have been other reasons for the Chinese to be reserved.
Considering the track record of the East India Company in conquering Bengali piece-by-piece during the decades just before this mission, which the Chinese must have been aware of, I think it's totally understandable they were wary. Which must have been the subtext in them telling that no thanks, we do not want your products and really don't want to give you a permanent foothold on the Chinese soil.
The fact that the Brits kept on proceeding nevertheless, turning a large number of Chinese citizens into opium addicts while at it, kind of justifies this stance. Maybe the only mistake the Chinese made was not to start improving their military might at the earliest signs of warning, while they still had time.
Furthermore, the embassies that came from tributary states like Vietnam and Korea did not come to impress the throne; they came to seek the emperor’s approval, which gave them political power back home.
Jesuit missions to China some two centuries earlier wowed Ming officials with technological wonders, high-quality illustrated works, and mathematical and mnemonic tricks. The British may have attempted to follow a similar model to impress the Qing court, not realizing (as noted in TFA) that representatives from other states were expected to behave in a different manner.
A great read on the early Jesuit missions to China (as well as insights into the late stages of the Ming Dynasty) is Ross Terrill's The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci
Furthermore, the embassies that came from tributary states like Vietnam and Korea did not come to impress the throne; they came to seek the emperor’s approval, which gave them political power back home. To demonstrate their government’s legitimacy in the eyes of the powerful Qing emperor was (at least in China’s eyes) to argue for their own sovereign’s right to rule in his own country. And to gain this approval, they paid tribute. They readily performed the so-called kowtow before the emperor in the manner of his own ministers—a prescribed ritual of nine kneeling bows to the ground (three sets of three) to humble themselves in his presence. And it made perfect sense to do so, because in their recognizing the supremacy of the emperor of China, the eminent power in Asia, he would recognize their supremacy within their own, smaller countries.
...
“When foreigners who come seeking audience with me are sincere and submissive, then I always treat them with kindness,” Qianlong wrote. “But if they come in arrogance, they get nothing.”
The more I get to know China and the Chinese, the more I realize that these are still the lenses they see the world through.
I find accusations of "whataboutism" even lazier. They're just thought-stoppers.
"Whatabout" is about putting things in perspective.
Accusations of whataboutism is about putting on blinders -- and examining only one thing at a time (the other side instead of yours usually), outside of any context.
In other works, avoiding "whataboutism" is the worst way to go about understanding anything.
Which makes sense, of course, as "accusations of whataboutism" were invented as a Cold War tactic, to dismiss any attempt of the "commies" to criticize back.
Yes I would imagine certain people would have used the exact same tactic in the cold war when millions of people lived under communism and all the hardships it caused. Now those same people are likely China-defenders.
Whataboutism is just lazy. For example I could criticise a republican politician without it being an endorsement of a democratic one. Stick to the topic at hand - don't bring up a distraction.
That's just a specific case of "kissing up", which WFAIO more or less promotes. It encourages one to gain a "genuine interest" in the person you want influence over, but that's tricky to force. WFAIO lacks a "meta" side that helps one motivate oneself to do the difficult/tedious steps. It's kind of like a diet book that tells you to exercise more and eat more vegetables and whole grains. Good advice, but the motivation for that is the hard part, which it may not cover.
Good analysis. (Meditation was my way to get more interested in others, and maybe more than that.) There is a difference between the WFAIO today and the original (which was more kissy-up) as I remember.
In a way it's sorta a book about how narcissists can please other narcissists (without ever getting to maybe benefiting others rather than just pleasing them) - but I must admit that narcissistic-on-narcissistic is the case that is most likely to go wrong.
I think most of us are narcissists, but just don't realize it. Evolution made us selfish and egotistical, and hid that fact from ourselves. Objectivity regarding self is probably not the optimum survival strategy.
"In the early 1820s, the British East India Company began large-scale production of tea in Assam, India, of a tea variety traditionally brewed by the Singpho people.[5]"
I would call the china situation actual conquest, rather than colonialism. Its the way the usa works as well. Hawaii did not become a colony, but a part of America.
If more people had basic knowledge of unbiased history, I think there'd be much less vitriol and silly uninformed opinion based (mistaken as fact-based) disagreements on forums.
Judging by downvotes, in the spirit of lifelong learning would it then be prudent to conclude that more people having a basic knowledge of history would be a bad thing? Or that it wouldn't decrease opinionated arguing on forums?
“Grand Choulaa” - this looks to me like the locals taking the piss.
Initially Macartney did not realize that he was supposed to prostrate himself before the emperor. Nor, when it was explained to him, was he willing to do so. Despite his great admiration for the prosperity and civilization of the Qing Empire, he viewed Qianlong as an equal to the king of England
Macartney would never have really considered Quianlong as equal to the King of Britain (England and Scotland became Britain a little earlier). I am also sure that Quianlong's people would have had exactly the same notion in reverse for exactly the same reason.