Klaus Mühlhahn On China's Rise In A Historical Perspective

Many commentators claim that China's ongoing global rise reflects a restoration of its earlier international prominence, while others highlight that China's emergence reflects distinctive characteristics of the country's current political leadership. In his new book, Making China Modern, Klaus Mühlhahn of the Free University of Berlin provides a panoramic survey of China's rise and resilience through war and rebellion, disease and famine. At this event Professor Mühlhahn will focus on the lessons from history that provide insight into China's evolving international position and how the United States and others should respond.
About the Book
A panoramic survey of China’s rise and resilience through war and rebellion, disease and famine, that rewrites China’s history for a new generation.
It is tempting to attribute China’s recent ascendance to changes in political leadership and economic policy. Making China Modern teaches otherwise. Moving beyond the standard framework of Cold War competition and national resurgence, Klaus Mühlhahn situates twenty-first-century China in the nation’s long history of creative adaptation.
In the mid-eighteenth century, when the Qing Empire reached the height of its power, China dominated a third of the world’s population and managed its largest economy. But as the Opium Wars threatened the nation’s sovereignty from without and the Taiping Rebellion ripped apart its social fabric from within, China found itself verging on free fall. A network of family relations, economic interdependence, institutional innovation, and structures of governance allowed citizens to regain their footing in a convulsing world. In China’s drive to reclaim regional centrality, its leaders looked outward as well as inward, at industrial developments and international markets offering new ways to thrive.
This dynamic legacy of overcoming adversity and weakness is apparent today in China’s triumphs―but also in its most worrisome trends. Telling a story of crisis and recovery, Making China Modern explores the versatility and resourcefulness that matters most to China’s survival, and to its future possibilities.
About the Speaker
Klaus Mühlhahn is Professor of Chinese History and Culture and Vice President at the Freie Universität Berlin. His book "Criminal Justice in China: A History" won the John K. Fairbank Prize in East Asian History from the American Historical Association. Mühlhahn has published widely on modern Chinese history in English, German, and Chinese and is a frequent commentator on China for the German media.

[@tubeandrew91083]

China's advance mainly culturally, not militarily, since they have no ambition of foreign occupation. They military were mainly on internal defense. That is the reason why they were taken advantage of by British starting with the opium war. And other countries thought of the same too to cut China like a peace of cake. It is no wonder after China learned that lesson the hard way, they gave much importance to develop militarily, not to be ravish ever again by the West. If not, history must have replayed itself now, especially with the world-wide anti-China sentiment.

[@leecheelek]

This Professor does have quite a good insight (not complete though) into how China came about into what it is today and the historical influence (only a few Centuries were attributed?) on the Chinese people which contributed towards it's meteoric rise onto the world stage once again in the 21st Century of Mankind. And it won't be silk or gunpowder or porcelain this time as it's next contribution to Humanity. What is left out, in my opinion is the extraordinary quick ability of the Chinese people to adopt successful proven changes and innovate to move cohesively en mass once the push is provided by leaders and institutions (still debatable on this point on the push factor), unlike other Nations and people which may not have the advantage and wisdom of a long civilization (5,000 years) and still undergoing many trials and errors, in what constitute good societal governance, and with their societies strength and empowerment diverted and divided, hindered, burdened by conflicting non-productive conflicts of old like ideologies, religion, politics, power, greed and self protectionism. Perhaps another follow-up book to gain more insight into the Rise of the Dragon from the East? Napoleon Bonaparte was perceived to have the wisdom and insight (his famous quote of "China is a sleeping lion. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.") but was unable to elaborate on it for the wisdom of Europe. Maybe the French President Emmanuel Macron saw the wisdom?

[@samuelchen7078]

Thanks for uploading! Great Speak!

[@allbluedream]

Thanks for overlaying the presentation screen over the video!

[@keffinsg]

What is more interesting for me, apart from this excellent presentation, is that the commentors here are mostly of asian extraction. It seems the white peoples as a whole are really not interested in understanding the east more. Look at other presentations on China, you will see the vast majority of attendees are asian. Is this really a lack of curiousity? Is it avoidance of painful truths? Denial that a coloured people may be their equal? Can parallels be drawn from their reaction now, to the Qing closing in on themselves, contented that they had the richest, most advanced, most powerful state, and had nothing to learn from the outside?

[@woodensurfer]

As an offshoot of Confucianism, indeed Qing did not emphasize science and technology until rather late, only reactionary to foreign aggression; however, the Chinese have always had strong entrepreneurial drive, especially after Song. Even though the culturally ascribed social status of merchants has always been low, practically their social status has been high, but only for 2-3 generations. The Chinese have been prosperous sporadically due partly to this innate entrepreneurial drive.

[@jyashin]

37:05 That's clearly wrong. China was NOT ruled by non-Chinese people for most of its history. Feudal China lasted for over 1400 years, and by definition it was ruled by Chinese people. Of the 2154 years of Imperial China, only the Yuan (Mongol) and Qing (Manchu) dynasties were ruled by foreign people, for only 364 years. Even if you add 203 years of Xianbei not being completely sinicized during the Northern and Southern Dynasties that's still just 567 years, or just 26.3% of Imperial China.

[@xinyiquan666]

technically manchurians are also chinese, manchus are not single people but a group of ethnic groups congregation as a military groups, mainly huligai, han chinese and mongols, while han chinese accounts for more than 70% in 1638, so technically manchus are pretty much han chinese too

[@xinyiquan666]

yuan dynasty only last 87 years

[@xinyiquan666]

xianbei people see themselves as han chinese too, they record their ancestors are yellow emperor,

[@chaz4609]

China has 56 ethnics. Many more ethnics had been fully assimilated

[@jyashin]

@@RAHELL19FM The Japanese never controlled China, only Manchuria. They only controlled it for 12 years too (1932-1945) and many historians consider the Japanese invasion to be the start of WWII as well. And that's a huge stretch to suggest Britain ruling Hong Kong to be tantamount to ruling China. Does Britain ruling Gibraltar mean it rules Spain?

[@chfgbp6098]

What can other countries learn from this analysis? Any short cuts for others?

[@hansolo7205]

Very educational, thank you. I totally agrees with this professor that China must set up institutions and reforms just to maintain what they have accomplished.

[@yttean98]

A new perspective about China, a most welcome book. He can talk for another hour to cover the rest of the book. Excellent talk. Facts(power of Institutions) and Truth(Porcelain Technology Thief) permeates across finally. He misses out on how China can adapt to change commercial/financial/economic and political environments.

[@Zair123]

The oil dollar need to be dealt with

[@seansailBruce]

Sorry, Really I didn't get any difference between Institution and System based on the speech, pls someone enlights me.

[@soongchiang7237]

Just professional jargons to keep the profession to themselves.

[@vinhqngouoc]

The Asian countries live in harmony. The great Easter countries caused most of the wars. Wars cost money

[@georgeshao9103]

Very insightful talk but still has many blind spots. Contrary to Klaus's understanding China was never a very open country. The country's greatest landmark is the great wall after all. The use of trade to advance the country is a rather new trick that helped to build up the country quickly. However the future of China is not dependent on trade. Trading with the west is only useful when there are things that can be learned from the west. Once the Chinese run out of things to learn, trade will become not worth their trouble and they will return to their isolationist ways. The fall of China is mistakenly thought of as an event from the shock of meeting the outside world. While the shock of the outside world is important, the dynamics of it's own internal dynastic cycles is just as important. Chinese dynasties don't rise or fall overnight. They move in a slow social process with a large amount of momentum. The meeting with the west happened to coincide with the natural decline cycle of the Qing Dynasty. The momentum from this decline got in the way of making adaptations to the west. The decentralization of power and the rise of special interests are characteristic of Chinese dynastic decline. In a sense we had to watch the slow motion collapse of the Qing dynasty complete itself before any new momentum could be built towards the rise of a new dynasty. A rising dynasty would have meet the challenge of the west very differently than a falling dynasty. After the fall of the Qing Dynasty Chinese did indeed experiment with many possible new dynasties. A fit was eventually found and the new dynasty has since taken hold. The state ideology is essentially a form of Modernized Classical Confucianism in the Guise of Sinicized Marxism. The state apparatus resembles a modernized imperial mandarin system placed on top of modern systems of grass roots political mobilization. The question of legitimacy mentioned by Klaus at the end is purely speculation. He has no way to objectively measure the legitimacy or actual threat level face by the current regime.

[@gfsrow]

Incorrect. What the author was suggesting is that (a) China's boundaries have been very fluid through time, and (b) the Chinese emperor has not always been of Han descent. Many Emperors were Mongolian, or Manchu, plus the colonial experiences along the coast. The author's information is not incorrect.

[@Zair123]

Over printing the dollar to pay debtsssss