09-19-2017, 10:38 AM
(09-18-2017, 01:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Your assumption is likely wrong; China through the ages has been
> an agricultural country surrounded by nonagricultural regions, so
> China could annex land, increase its food productivity using
> agriculture, and assimilate the population without any
> extermination.
This is a highly idealistic and sanguine view of China's policy. In
recent times, China has annexed Tibet and Xinjiang, and has flooded
these regions with Han Chinese in order to do what you suggest,
"assimilate the population without any extermination."
But that clearly is not working. Tibetans and Uighurs are not
being assimilated. So in my view, China is headed inevitably
toward extermination or, at best, assimilation by force, which
is a variation of extermination.
(09-18-2017, 01:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Nor is it at all "typical of Chinese thinking" today: Chinese
> thinking today still ranks development of production highest among
> solutions, for example with their active development of
> alternative power sources. The South China Sea is the only place
> where China is showing any tendency toward expansionism, and no
> one lives there to be exterminated.
So what? China is annexing traditional fishing grounds of other
countries, and regions containing oil and gas reserves of other
countries, and China has made it clear that it will kill anyone who
opposes them. It's extermination by a different methodology.
In 2006, I quoted Sha Zukang, China's UN ambassador, saying the
following, which I transcribed from a BBC interview:
China's UN ambassador Sha Zukang, 2006 Wrote:> "The moment that Taiwan declares independence, supported by
> whomever, China will have no choice but to [use] whatever means
> available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on
> that. ...
> It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one INCH of
> the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people."
> [With regard to the U.S.'s constant criticism of China's rapid
> militarization:] It's better for the U.S. to shut up, keep quiet.
> That's much, much better. China's population is 6 times or 5
> times the United States. Why blame China? No. forget it. It's
> high time to shut up. It's a nation's sovereign right to do what
> is good for them. But don't tell us what's good for China. Thank
> you very much."
So in fact annexation and extermination is typical of Chinese people.
These are people with a completely different view of the world than
Americans. When Sha says, "one INCH of the territory is more valuable
than the LIVES of our people," he's also saying "we're willing to
exterminate people, even our own people, to get more territory."
From China's world view, there are too many people and and there's too
little land, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with killing off a
few million people. For China, it's perfectly OK as a way to redress
the balance, just as good as "development of production," and equal in
morality. China's leaders might say that if people are going to die
anyway from starvation and famine, then why not kill them off right
away? Even better, let's kill off the people that we (China's
leaders) don't like, so that the people that we do like will have more
food. (Incidentally, this is similar to policy recommendations put
forth by Malthus.)
This is a cultural view deeply ingrained in the Chinese psyche, as
illustrated by the fact that, for millennia, the Chinese have
considered Sun Tzu's The Art of War to be one of greatest literary
achievements of all times.
As I've said before, people my age have wondered our whole lives how
it was possible for Hitler to so completely fool the British people.
Reading your posts answers that question completely.
