History shows US is more aggressive than China
While I would not debate whether China’s rise is beneficial or aggressive, I would point out misleading facts presented in the commentary “China’s rise and the lessons of history” (June 22).
While I would not debate whether China’s rise is beneficial or aggressive, I would point out misleading facts presented in the commentary “China’s rise and the lessons of history” (June 22).
It stated that few people in 1900 could predict that the United States would become an imperial superpower, implying that its imperialistic intent was recent or incidental.
The War of 1812, which the US provoked with flimsy excuses, the war in Texas, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War and the colonisation of the Philippines all show that America’s inclinations were clear from day one.
One who has read Chinese history would notice that the Tang Dynasty pacified Xinjiang’s nomadic tribes, and that Tibet was more or less within the boundary of the Yuan and Ming dynasties.
During the rise and fall of dynasties, it is true that certain areas would try to break off, but the Qing’s reason for reconquering Tibet and Xinjiang was more legitimate than, say, the conquest of native North and South Americans.
Once, the world consisted only of city states. Slowly, they came together to form the nation states we know today. It all depends on how far one wants to go back in history. The Qing’s wars occurred in the 18th century, while the US was still killing Red Indians in the 19th century. Historically, how could China be more aggressive than the US?