Yankee-stani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2018
- Messages
- 8,100
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Despite evidence to the contrary, we are being bombarded non-stop by Western propaganda 24/7, fed to us in a didactic tone, delineating Chinese imperialism under the guise of Belt and Road initiative (BRI). It would be an underestimation to say that the U.S.-led propaganda against BRI is Orientalism on steroids.
Historically, China has not been the aggressor. Even the ideologically motivated communist state didn’t embark on a proselytizing mission. Even though China is the world’s manufacturing superpower, it is embarrassing from a Western viewpoint that she has not “manufactured” any Hitler or Napoleon, who dreamed of conquering the world. Despite evidence to the contrary, we are being bombarded non-stop by Western propaganda 24/7, fed to us in a didactic tone, delineating Chinese imperialism under the guise of Belt and Road initiative (BRI). It would be an underestimation to say that the U.S.-led propaganda against BRI is Orientalism on steroids.
Let’s first look at the historical context to understand the foundations of Sinophobia.
According to Condorcet, all the cultures and civilizations lived and died for a higher goal, outside and beyond themselves, and in preparation for the dawn of modernity, Anglo-Saxon or Western civilization to be precise. Therefore, the eternal truth of progress and prosperity should sprout only from the West, no oriental nation outside could, or should, be allowed to climb the summit of progress thereby embarrassing itself as it will be an anomaly and quite a non-scientific occurrence, denying the superiority and authority of the occident over orient. Nevertheless, there are certain exceptions, such as epidemics stemming from industrial farming and the encroachment of forests, etc., that are problems of modernity, where credit is given by labels like “Wuhan Virus.”
From Cromer’s conception of a harmoniously working machine sustaining Western authority over subject races to Kissinger’s binary of those who had the Newtonian revolution and those who didn’t, everything boils down to finding ways of containing the so-called developing world.
On the surface, the non-stop China-bashing may appear as an aspect of imperialist rivalry arising out of some conflict over overseas possessions, but it is not. Again, this approach stems from the Western proclivity of understanding and creating the world in its own image, unable to understand the simple concept that not all strong nations aim at subjugating the weak ones that are left out. Is it too hard a concept to understand that some nations are civilized in the real sense of the word? Perhaps inherited traditions and institutional memories, formed from centuries of colonial plunder, are mapped over thinking patterns of colonizers as a set of constraints upon and on limitations of thought.
The picture gets clearer when Admiral Zheng He, the peaceful envoy of Ming dynasty, who left a beautiful legacy and is still held in high esteem by the people in Southeast Asia, is compared with, let’s say, Egypt’s master Evelyn Baring (also known as “Over-baring”), Lord Cromer. There was a slight difference in the approaches of both these representatives. While the oriental representative relied on trade and commerce, the occidental master resorted to the gun boat diplomacy of colonization and massacres.
The difference in attitudes could not have been pointed out more explicitly than the way venture capitalist and social scientist Eric Li said it in John Pilger’s highly recommended documentary “The coming war on China”. In his words, “One myth I think really that needs to be dispelled is that somehow China is aiming to replace America and going to run the world, and it’s not. First of all, the Chinese are not that stupid. The west with its Christian roots, are about converting other people into their beliefs. The Chinese are not about that. It’s just that – again, I’m not degrading the Western culture, I’m just pointing out the inherent nature, the DNA of two different cultures- the Chinese two thousand years ago built the Great wall to keep the barbarians out, not to invade them.”
If it had been just a simple conflict of interest between rival imperial powers then the present Lords would have had no difficulty finding recourse in what Lord Salisbury had to say in such circumstances, “When you have got a . . . faithful ally who is bent on meddling in a country in which you are deeply interested – you have three courses open to you. You may – renounce – or monopolize – or share. Renouncing would have been to place the French across our road to India. Monopolizing would have been very near the risk of war. So we resolved to share.” The state of tension is not just the outcome of the conflicting sphere of influence but a radical difference in the approach of China.
China took full advantage of the flawed panacea for the overproduction crisis by the West. While the West was using the surplus by investing and trading in inflated asset prizes, China was expanding its manufacturing base using cheap labour and becoming a global colossus.
One of the main mistakes the Chinese made was that they didn’t socialize poverty. China was good as long as the purchasing power of U.S was good. But after the 2008 financial crisis, China became too big to fit in the debt-created demand of the U.S. China started to spread the risks and benefits and began a process to pivot out of its over-dependence on the U.S and European markets in the form of its BRI.
The continuous demonizing of China has roots in the superiority complex intertwined in a paradoxical way with the insecurity of Anglo-American power. As long as China pursues BRI, the Cold War 2.0 or hybrid war 1.0 or trade war or whatever term suits our disposition will continue. The disinformation campaign will continue indefinitely unless China becomes pliable enough to pander to the whims of the Masters of the Universe.
By Syed Umar Saqaf
http://oneworld.press/?module=artic...1KcNg0_D7vU5b_HsjzrZsW9Gp504nS57s0WsUwESAUxjk
Historically, China has not been the aggressor. Even the ideologically motivated communist state didn’t embark on a proselytizing mission. Even though China is the world’s manufacturing superpower, it is embarrassing from a Western viewpoint that she has not “manufactured” any Hitler or Napoleon, who dreamed of conquering the world. Despite evidence to the contrary, we are being bombarded non-stop by Western propaganda 24/7, fed to us in a didactic tone, delineating Chinese imperialism under the guise of Belt and Road initiative (BRI). It would be an underestimation to say that the U.S.-led propaganda against BRI is Orientalism on steroids.
Let’s first look at the historical context to understand the foundations of Sinophobia.
According to Condorcet, all the cultures and civilizations lived and died for a higher goal, outside and beyond themselves, and in preparation for the dawn of modernity, Anglo-Saxon or Western civilization to be precise. Therefore, the eternal truth of progress and prosperity should sprout only from the West, no oriental nation outside could, or should, be allowed to climb the summit of progress thereby embarrassing itself as it will be an anomaly and quite a non-scientific occurrence, denying the superiority and authority of the occident over orient. Nevertheless, there are certain exceptions, such as epidemics stemming from industrial farming and the encroachment of forests, etc., that are problems of modernity, where credit is given by labels like “Wuhan Virus.”
From Cromer’s conception of a harmoniously working machine sustaining Western authority over subject races to Kissinger’s binary of those who had the Newtonian revolution and those who didn’t, everything boils down to finding ways of containing the so-called developing world.
On the surface, the non-stop China-bashing may appear as an aspect of imperialist rivalry arising out of some conflict over overseas possessions, but it is not. Again, this approach stems from the Western proclivity of understanding and creating the world in its own image, unable to understand the simple concept that not all strong nations aim at subjugating the weak ones that are left out. Is it too hard a concept to understand that some nations are civilized in the real sense of the word? Perhaps inherited traditions and institutional memories, formed from centuries of colonial plunder, are mapped over thinking patterns of colonizers as a set of constraints upon and on limitations of thought.
The picture gets clearer when Admiral Zheng He, the peaceful envoy of Ming dynasty, who left a beautiful legacy and is still held in high esteem by the people in Southeast Asia, is compared with, let’s say, Egypt’s master Evelyn Baring (also known as “Over-baring”), Lord Cromer. There was a slight difference in the approaches of both these representatives. While the oriental representative relied on trade and commerce, the occidental master resorted to the gun boat diplomacy of colonization and massacres.
The difference in attitudes could not have been pointed out more explicitly than the way venture capitalist and social scientist Eric Li said it in John Pilger’s highly recommended documentary “The coming war on China”. In his words, “One myth I think really that needs to be dispelled is that somehow China is aiming to replace America and going to run the world, and it’s not. First of all, the Chinese are not that stupid. The west with its Christian roots, are about converting other people into their beliefs. The Chinese are not about that. It’s just that – again, I’m not degrading the Western culture, I’m just pointing out the inherent nature, the DNA of two different cultures- the Chinese two thousand years ago built the Great wall to keep the barbarians out, not to invade them.”
If it had been just a simple conflict of interest between rival imperial powers then the present Lords would have had no difficulty finding recourse in what Lord Salisbury had to say in such circumstances, “When you have got a . . . faithful ally who is bent on meddling in a country in which you are deeply interested – you have three courses open to you. You may – renounce – or monopolize – or share. Renouncing would have been to place the French across our road to India. Monopolizing would have been very near the risk of war. So we resolved to share.” The state of tension is not just the outcome of the conflicting sphere of influence but a radical difference in the approach of China.
China took full advantage of the flawed panacea for the overproduction crisis by the West. While the West was using the surplus by investing and trading in inflated asset prizes, China was expanding its manufacturing base using cheap labour and becoming a global colossus.
One of the main mistakes the Chinese made was that they didn’t socialize poverty. China was good as long as the purchasing power of U.S was good. But after the 2008 financial crisis, China became too big to fit in the debt-created demand of the U.S. China started to spread the risks and benefits and began a process to pivot out of its over-dependence on the U.S and European markets in the form of its BRI.
The continuous demonizing of China has roots in the superiority complex intertwined in a paradoxical way with the insecurity of Anglo-American power. As long as China pursues BRI, the Cold War 2.0 or hybrid war 1.0 or trade war or whatever term suits our disposition will continue. The disinformation campaign will continue indefinitely unless China becomes pliable enough to pander to the whims of the Masters of the Universe.
By Syed Umar Saqaf
http://oneworld.press/?module=artic...1KcNg0_D7vU5b_HsjzrZsW9Gp504nS57s0WsUwESAUxjk
