"His book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, is a work of sheer fiction presented as revisionist history. Not a single document or artifact has been found to support his new claims on the supposed Ming naval expeditions beyond Africa."
But it is a fact that America was known and had settlements before Columbus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows
They are not exactly descendants of the Norse.
So China are the good guys? Racist white colonizers who genocided Native Americans, and enslaved millions of black people should perhaps take some lessons from China!
"Today we think of the Amazon as a pristine rainforest, sparsely populated by indigenous communities. But in records from the 1500s, Spanish colonizers describe a densely populated region, crisscrossed by canals and sunken roads and dotted with bustling, fortified towns. Unfortunately, fortification couldn’t protect the towns’ inhabitants against European diseases, which devastated South American indigenous populations and left the fortified villages abandoned." https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/network-of-fortified...
"Some 5 million people may have lived in the Amazon region in AD 1500, divided between dense coastal settlements, such as that at Marajó, and inland dwellers. By 1900, the population had fallen to 1 million and by the early 1980s it was less than 200,000."
The New World people only domesticated a handful of animals, such as the guinea pig and the llama. So, fewer opportunities to catch something from them.
Still, they had a new disease that spread to the Old World: syphilis, which certainly killed several million Old-Worlders, only it took longer to run its course and could be prevented by, well, chastity.
An interesting idea: if you count victims of smoking towards the total death toll (tobacco is a New World plant), it may well be that the Old World suffered more deaths from the Columbian Exchange. But spread over a much larger population and a much longer time, these deaths didn't amount to destruction of entire civilizations.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep...
And a huge number from forced labour, executions, and torture, well described by the colonizers themselves.
Bear in mind that the slaves weren't all black, and the slavers weren't all white.
China occupied and absorbed a lot of nearby nations during its existence. 4000 years ago, what passed for China was much smaller than today's PRC territory.
The fact that the Chinese (like the Russians) expanded on land instead of sailing towards their colonies on ships shouldn't play a role in labeling their activity as fundamentally colonial.
Even now they are trying to displace the Tibetans from Lhasa, with only the low atmospheric pressure (which causes health problems to people stemming from lowlands) standing in their way.
Oh, yes it does. Very much so.
All nations fight with their neighoring nations, did so back in the millenia old past, back in the day, and still do today: they have disputes, they go to war, they sometimes merge, and so on. Even Italy and Germany, for example, was just a bunch of smaller regions, not long ago (19th century), and the annexations, neighbor fighting, and disputes in Europe continue to this day.
Not all nations became colonizers though, war and annexation of some neighborhood land is not "colonization", and it's a handful of European countries that did so in the 19th and 20th century - while presenting themselves as beacons for freedom and englightenment.
Not to mention, they also did it to China itself.
I happen to think otherwise, being from a nation that was targeted by both German and Russian imperialism.
Whether the invaders roll in in chariots, tanks or ships is an irrelevant technical detail for me. The goal is the same, domination over somebody weaker than you, usually supported by resettlements of foreigners to your territory.
Ask, e.g. the Baltic nations whether what Stalin did to them was not "colonialism". The USSR in general engaged in forced russification of everyone.
E.g. occupying a position of a "decolonization" officer somewhere (some institution of higher learning?) and having a secure job with no performance reviews + power over others until they retire.
Countries have disputes and go to wars with their neighbors, and neighboring areas are historically mixed populations, which drives tensions as to who owns what, and such, often resolved in wars (which are seldom one sided: historically the offending sides alternate). And usually those countries are of the same or similar development stage, plus they have to live close together, as populations, so enslavement is rarely if ever the case, nor is it made about racial inferiority.
So, yeah, "the neighboring warlord who arriving on a horse" is not some 10-100x stronger and richer global power coming to the other side of the world to make your people slaves, considers you racially inferior, displays you in human zoos, and even declares open season and hunts you like animals, while they steal your resources...
So there's that.
This is just demonstrably untrue. Plenty of neighboring warfare is still waged on the basis of race. Look at the history of the Middle East. The history of Europe itself. Look at Israel and Palestine. Look at Japan and Korea's history of warfare... or really Japan vs any of its neighboring Asian countries. Han nationalism, if we want a Chinese example since that's what this topic started with. All of these examples also involve slavery at various levels.
Being neighbors does not in any way shape or form make for "better" or "gentler" war as far I can tell from history. Your point just doesn't hold up to obvious historical data.
Bear in mind, I don't say any of this to absolve the evils of colonial powers. It's just strange to me that in the modern day it's treated so differently when it doesn't really look like a deviation at all from man's "usual" cruelty.
I could ask them, but I would get diverging opinions, especially if I go back to the generations that actually lived under that (and who often expressed how they find it "better" in several ways, in published post-1991 polls).
Not to mention the civil tension even at the start of this, pre- and post-WWII, between pro-communists and pro-USSR at the time (which had sizable popular support among European peoples, from Italians, Spanish, Greeks, Portuguese and so on, including sizable numbers in France and Germany) and also much more remote parts of the world, and which was squashed with quite a lot of blood and far right terrorism. Czechoslovakia itself had quite a strong communist party, way before 1948.
True.
However, forcing the invader's culture and practises on the conquered people and taking steps to replace the local language, culture, politico-legal systems and social structures is. Did or did China not do this to the people it conquered?
That's orthogonal, more like cultural imperialism. Some colonizers did it, others were just fine with not imposing any of their culture on the locals, simply because they merely wanted to use them as slave labour or primitives to be utilized.
It's also not an exclusive sign of colonialism. All countries that emerged from a merger or combination (like in Europe, from Spain, France, Italy, and Germany, to Austro-Hungary and the balkans), whether through war/annexation, peaceful merging, or revolutionary nation building, unite the culture of the parts, usually based on the dominant cultural group from before. This happens both for business and governing needs, but also organically through job migration, commerce, and so on - and often includes some coercion. Not sure China's case is heavier than others, especially given the era.
A Chinese emperor once famously said to the British: “Our celestial empire possesses all things in abundance and lacks no product within its borders. There is therefore no need to import the manufactures of barbarians in exchange for our own products.”[1]
Old civilizations are deeply connected to their geography, and once they settle down in a fertile area, they generally don't feel the need to colonize or fight people beyond their immediate neighbourhood. Barring a couple of exceptions, the Chinese and Indian experiences are very similar.
The only reason Europeans went out on their ships was to find a sea route to India after their traditional routes were blocked by the Turks and the Arabs.
[1] The Second Opium War (https://origins.osu.edu/read/second-opium-war)
Yes. And it became very clear to them, there was something they SHOULD have bought. Military Technology!
"He was buried at sea, and the fleet turned back to China. Soon after, the emperor, supported by Confucian officials, ordered the ships to be burned and outlawed most maritime trade. In what was a purely political move, all official records of the voyages were systematically destroyed."
This fleet was light-years ahead of what Columbus had available. But it was Europe who conquered the world and colonized the so called new world, not China.