Heisenberg wrote:Sorry, I must have missed all of China's genocidal wars of global conquest. Could you fill me in?
They were not up to Alexander III's level frankly,
but they are eager to think the whole land as one single entity,
and their people as the central and should be respected from all sides.
They didn't embark a "global conquest" not because they didn't want to.
They just weren't capable
Their geography means they were not capable of transcontinental voyages before the modern ages.
China was pretty eager to kill even back in Qin Shi Huang's times or before.
Mencius and, more importantly, Mozi, had to call for peace
because the opposite was what's exactly happened.
The Emperor Wu of Han would be seen as a terrible genocidal maniac today,
but he's appreciated for his "historical feat" of establishing China's boundaries.
The same goes for Emperors Yongle and Qianlong.
It's China's turn again now.
Don't let their relative inaction fool you.
On a side note, Japan also didn't go far before the Americans came
(aside from an invasion to Korea in the late 16th century)
See what they had done in less than 100 years.
Heisenberg wrote:While you're at it, would you mind helping me understand how Hong Kong fell into British hands?
The British merely wanted to open a port for trade (opium trade is not right, but still),
not to conquer whole of China.
Moreover, they learned much better and had successfully made Hong Kong a safe haven.
Most significantly in the 1970s and 1980s, but in fact way before that.
Even Sun Yat-sen (the founder of modern Republic of China) was a beneficiary no-less.
Come to think of it, I would say we would fare better if we were ruled in a British system.