What America gets wrong about China and the rest of Asia | David Kang | Big Think

What America gets wrong about China and the rest of Asia
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We often use the lessons from European history to try to understand China, says David Kang, professor of international relations at USC. But we don't have to if we were to take Asia on its own terms instead of using Europe to explain it. If we look at the history of East Asia, we see that the United States and China can avoid conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KANG:
David C. Kang is Maria Crutcher Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, with appointments in both the School of International Relations and the Marshall School of Business. At USC he is also director of the Korean Studies Institute. Kang’s latest book is "American Grand Strategy and East Asian Security in the 21st Century," (2017, Cambridge University Press). He is also author of "East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute"; "China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia"; "Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines"; and "Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies" (co-authored with Victor Cha). Kang has published numerous scholarly articles in journals such as International Organization and International Security, and his co-authored article “Testing Balance of Power Theory in World History” was awarded “Best article, 2007-2009,” by the European Journal of International Relations. Kang has also written opinion pieces in the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as writing a monthly column for the Joongang Ilbo in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
We instinctively use the lessons of European history to explain Asia’s future, and it is incredibly difficult to make the argument that we should look at Asia’s history if we want to understand where Asia is going to go in the future.
The most common way that we think about power transitions in international relations is to look at a war between Sparta and Athens from 2500 years ago-the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece. There, a rising power caused fear in a declining power and they ended up inevitably fighting.
Thucydides wrote about this in his famous History of the Peloponnesian War, and almost ever since then what IR scholars and international relation scholars and historians have done is used the example of the Peloponnesian War as the most foundational way in which we think about rising powers: “Rising powers are inevitably ambitious. Declining powers are inevitably fearful and they always clash at some point.”
Well, when we get to modern China today the example seems to fit perfectly, which is: China is a rising power, it’s very ambitious; America is a declining power, it’s very fearful; and so at some point there’s almost an inevitable chance that the two are going to come into conflict.
And in fact you hear this over and over again. And yet in a way-isn’t it weird to think about a primitive infantry battle between two Greek villages from 2500 years ago that would have any implications for what contemporary modern China, how they’re going to behave today? I mean in a way it seems like quite a stretch.
And in many cases I think that simply taking the lessons of history in this way biases us towards looking towards conflict in ways I don’t think actually are necessarily going to play out, particularly in contemporary East Asia.
That is, what we do, is we always take European history as the sum of all things, and somehow what happened-again, 2500 years ago in ancient Greece-is going to predict what’s going to happen in modern East Asia.
And I don’t think that’s the case at all, especially when we look at how East Asian history worked.
If we were to take East Asia on its own terms instead of using Europe to explain Asia-why don’t we look at East Asia?
And if we took it on its own terms one thing that we would find is that first of all China is not really rising; China has always been big!
Sometimes it goes into a period of decline and then it comes back, and this is more return than a rise, so it’s not anything new to the countries in the region.
In many ways what happens is: China’s dominance, China’s massive size has been a fact of life in East Asia for literally centuries, so this is nothing new.
So it’s not at all clear to me that we should view this as a “rising power” any more than we would view the United States as a “potentially rising power.”
...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/david-kan...

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@4G12]

Long story short: Stop looking outside for enemies, instead deal with the enemies within first before we kill ourselves off with our own stupidity.

[@lisa.e5776]

You can very well do that especially everyone has firearms in America. 🤕

[@edwardcardozo8325]

@@lisa.e5776 🤡

[@OrkutEraMelhor]

Impossible for America, your warmongering weapon industry needs conflict, your country became a superpower due to two world wars.

[@aukaming2011]

I finally hear some people spreading wisdom rather than fears

[@jkchannel3149]

A good communist is a dead communist. Wisdom is nothing but totalitarianism and total suppression to those oppose their ideals

[@user-DongJ]

@@jkchannel3149 - By promoting/posting “A good XX is a dead XX”, you have demonstrated a lack of empathy and is in violation of KZbin community guidelines < support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en&ref_topic=2803176 >. Please remove such hateful comments/contents within 14 days or you will be reported to the administrators/moderators for further actions.

[@richardbroner9852]

@@user-DongJ Shut your communist mouth. You rat on each other for profit. You are a sheep to your system. The only thing Mao did was make the people of China turn against one another in order for him to reach the top. Xi Jinping went from exile and poor to being the leader of China with a net worth of 1.5 billion dollars. Corrupt? Yes!

[@somethinglikethisone6635]

Bradolf Pitler isn’t Mao’s trick being practiced by trump? And even Obama? By labeling people and making them fight, so that American leader would get away from not fixing the system.

[@marioiannarelli1718]

It's definitely refreshing to hear a balanced and well informed point of view. I unfortunately think David is too optimistic; there is a real danger that we might sleepwalk into a conflict, but again history need not be destiny.

[@smithgeorge8234]

Most foreigners have not read China's 5,000-year history. Most of them don't understand it. It is stupid to use only their own experience to measure other people's behavior. This person knows a lot about Chinese and is a smart person.

[@ycdantywong]

I doubt any ordinary China man have read China's 5000 year history. Also, China does not have a 5,000 year history. The Shang dynasty (founded around 1600 BC) is as far back as we have solid archaeological evidence and positive proof of the first written records. Earlier than that, history disintegrates into mythology.

[@ye1451]

smith george I can literally just flip this to describe the hate for America that comes from all over Europe and Asia

[@dylanwang9192]

@@ycdantywong I mean how is someone gonna learn over 5,000 years of history

[@InfernoBlade64]

@@ycdantywong china existed way before the shang

[@turnipsociety706]

foreigners?

[@iamzora]

as Chinese, I agree his perspective , war is a concept, it only happen when people start to believe it. deeply wish we can open our mind to respect and learn from diffrent culture.

[@biocapsule7311]

That is quite true, since for most of China's history, military expansion has never been their preferred means of influence.

[@alanfriesen9837]

The Chinese have used military expansion when it suited them.

[@biocapsule7311]

I said most, it has but rarely so. Just look at the history. Expansion if it ever happens tended towards the early stage of a particular dynasty and rarely ever beyond a certain point, the most "expansionist" (if you can call it that) of their emperors tended towards establishing what they consider a strategically advantageous & defensible border as the primary goal, and no more, than the rest of the dynasty the border stays there until the empire gradually weaken in their waning phase. They almost never do so due to some madness of conquest, mostly they already have the richest territory around and Chinese as a whole are more interested in keeping what they view as "chinese". The only dynasty that ever when on a conquering campaign were the Yuan (the Mongols), and yes, the chinese do count them after the fact.

[@alanfriesen9837]

If you look at China throughout its history it gradually grows from the Upper Huanghe basin into the colossus that it is today expanding with every dynasty during it's early years when the army was strong and the emperors were engaged. All of those growth spurts occurred at the edge of a sword or at least at the credible threat of such. I don't think China has a particularly violent history. In fact it's tendency to have long periods of relative political stability makes it a lot less violent historically than more typically fragmented regions like say, Europe, but to suggest that military expansion was rare is historically inaccurate. It is true that Imperial China commonly used soft power methods to spread its influence beyond its military reach particularly through the spread of writing, Confucianism and other philosophical treatises like Sun Tzu's "Art of War". I think in the future China will be able to use similar tools around the world and I think the world will benefit for it. But people are people and rulers are rulers and where the state's interests are best served through the projection of force, force will be projected.

[@biocapsule7311]

Yeah, they would if they have to... but 'rare' I think is suitable describe considering the aggregate of their military history and the even pattern the expansion follows. I am not a fan of confucianism, I think most of Chinese problems (if not all) come from it, it is too conservative... but it has 1 singular advantage, that conservative nature also allow it to maintain a kind of cultural homogeneous hegemony. Chinese put above all things... long term stability, by whatever means necessary, war is not an ideal method for that goal. They (mainlanders) can be very violent like everyone else but it's usually internal, civil war etc.

[@alanfriesen9837]

The thing I really like about Confucianism is that it is humanist. It's all about doing your part to make society better because that's the right thing to do, not because it pleases some deity. I think it is undeniably one of the most important ingredients to China's long term success over the last two millennia and change. I like the fact that it's not really religious even though Chinese regularly pray to Confucius which is mostly to do with his position as an honorary ancestor to everyone in China. The biggest problem I have with Confucianism is the subservient position it places on women. However, I think that's changeable. Confucianism has been overhauled once to the long-term benefit of China during the Song Dynasty and once to the long-term detriment of China during the Ming Dynasty. In order for it to fully benefit China in the future it'll need to be similarly overhauled again and gender equality could and should be incorporated into that overhaul.

[@ifurkend]

When you have intensifying internal issues, the leaders always, without exception, redirect the public focus on external issues.

[@trollmcclure2659]

Only way for the USA to unite republicans and democrats : more wars

[@clsanchez77]

Well this comment aged very nicely

[@mikebar42]

Sounds right

[@SK-ql3yf]

Spot on! We had a bunch of little boys and girls running the country.

[@muffins4tots]

Wow a lot of negativity for a video that says that internal struggles are damning to large countries. This is true and has been true for a long time.

[@Mageroeth]

muffins4tots Because the kochs aren't honest actors them and there money is part of the reason for our countries decline. I find it absurd for the kochs to pay for a video to shake there finger @ people when they are one of the main factors in our decline.

[@muffins4tots]

Blue Jay ah yes the old " I don't have a good response we blame the Koch's" argument

[@Mageroeth]

muffins4tots I'm pretty sure you have no idea what your talking about.

[@alveolate]

my issue with the video is that it is vague to the point that it doesn't say anything. "internal issues" have ALWAYS mattered to every nation - why is this even a surprise? generalising china's stature from history is also a moot point. back in the day, china was the regional hegemony because they were the wealthiest large nation with excellent education and bureaucracy - compared to the neighboring nations. and the emperor was still forced to capitulate to the british gunships when they forced china to trade. in that era, there was no UN, no WTO, no globalised news media, no UDHR... kings and queens pretty much did as they pleased and so did many emperors. the issues of those times are interesting for historical study; but not directly applicable to modern international relations. the only point that made any sense was learning about east asia through their cultural lens - but imo, this is also a self-evident point. sure, americans need to be reminded again and again; but if you're trying to do business in china, you'd have figured that out or gone bankrupt long ago. however, if this is a message to the white house, i guess there's a point since they're insular conspiracy theorists with no cultural sensitivity whatsoever. is that why they splashed koch's name on the intro? to get a sort of buy-in with the trump voters? is that also why the video came across as fairly vacuous?

[@Mageroeth]

Gregory Samuel Teo Because he's a Koch guy and I think big think is still trying to be neutral. Pointing to your last question. I agree with your statements for the most part.

[@rikachiu]

I bet most people didn't even reach the end of the video before furiously typing away. Wake up people, he makes an excellent point about internal issues. Our country today has never been more divided. That is the problem we need to focus on more than any other matter right now.

[@joeburns88]

US was very divided before the Civil War and the reconstruction era as well. The 1960s was very stormy. The US seems to of always been a country with great challenges politically and economically. Hard to have an objective perspective when you're living it. In China, their problems are mostly hidden - it's a one party state that puts out only good news about itself.

[@KL-zp3bl]

US is always divided from the beginning.

[@dimelo3027]

US is divided from the beginning? Have you heard of the Civil War? It united the country at the expense of millions of lives and nobody dares to seriously take about independence from the states ever since.

[@Kingofmolotov]

True, only the USA is divided because in China it's impossible to debate anywhere without getting sent to prison. No debate = no divison Right?

[@deliciousdeviant5333]

Prinz von Kirchberg The propaganda machine in China is exceptionally effective in stirring national sentoment. Also Chinese are culturally more apolitical. As long as the money train keeps coming they will be happy.

[@DBEdwards]

David Kang is very articulate and well spoken. Excellent perspective. I could listen to him all night.

[@erickrcisneros]

Watching this reminds me to always look at issues from as many sides as possible.. I may not always agree, but I do gain valuable perspective!

[@datosteveyap]

His views on how the West use their own bankrupt/irrelevant standards to judge others would merit greater attention.

[@Steven-xf8mz]

The reality is Chinese internal issue could be resolved if given enough time but the US is a different story. It's heavily divided in recent decades, left leans more left and right goes more right every election, no president is willing to resolve this. Any politicians trying to bridge the gap will be seen as a traitor to the party, apparently party is more important than the country for the party. neither side is willing to be seen a weak person, it's politically exploitable by their opponent from both side of the aisles. Frankly speaking, anyone who can/willing put country before the party won't make it to the ballot, the troll base from both sides are extremely toxic.

[@KrazeDiamond]

That's "Democracy" for you, toxic at its core. It was invented by the wealthy and powerful in the Roman Empire as an experiment, to give the people an illusion of freedom, and to get the people fighting among themselves. It also gave way to legalized homosexuality, feminism, rights for criminals, welfare for the poor and lazy and no incentives for the backbone middle-class...and more...Everything we're facing in the US today. It eventually led to the fall of the Empire. It's basically designed to divide people.

[@shoeonhead]

Steven Chen Actually the right is becoming more left over time (example less religiously puritanistic, on board with gay rights and women equality, getting further to moderate. While the left is becoming more left due to a current paradigm shift that they haven’t modernized to yet. The Overton window was left and it’s swinging right as a natural balance, as it always does. The overreach and corruption of structural power and monied interests on both sides are to blame. Empires fall early because of this exact issue. Thats why 200 years is usually around when the culture becomes to decadent and corruption destroys the nation from within through the form of social unrest and demonization of the “others”.

[@GameplayandTalk]

Lots of interesting points here. Thanks for the video.

[@JustinPugsley]

That's a very refreshingly different perspective on US / China dynamics and a good challenge to theories around certain inevitabilities. It says a lot IMO that China spends more on internal security than external - suggesting the regime fears internal forces far more than external ones and quite rightly given the country's history as David Kang points out.

[@trollmcclure2659]

The USA spend and fear more about external forces while their internal issues are far worse

[@Troglodyte2021]

I have found a smart American.

[@ML6103]

P L.Y. That’s a fairly ridiculous thing to say. There are plenty of smart people in every country. There are fools all over the world too. Why don’t we stop making smug judgemental comments and listen to the message of this video

[@tookatapatha6824]

@p L.Y. You need to choose your word carefully

[@Troglodyte2021]

@@tookatapatha6824 You bet your boots from now on I will. I have found another 'smart' American.

[@terminator565]

Haha first of all what country invented the internet?

[@terminator565]

@Temujin man fuck off dumbass then why are you using the English language lol fuck off

[@NelsonLovell]

Considering USC for my international relations studies after watching this. Good stuff Professor Kang.

[@huanglipengcarl]

Kang, though you are US citizen, you did not betray your Korean ancestry. You are the first US citizen to speak of the matter with much truth. Too bad though you are the only one so far as of the year 2019.

[@DrustZapat]

I wish we had more of this in schools in the US. There's way too much emphasis on "The West" and "Western Civilization".

[@kennyknight07]

Thank you... This is one of the best Utube channels providing thought to me.!

[@benbryant1693]

interesting vid, David! -thank you...

[@marryme2298]

Very few westerners can have this type of perspective

[@BilalHussain-yd6ck]

I think this guy has it because he's probably half Asian

[@adamsmith3413]

That’s a pretty shallow view. The past twenty years of US engagement with China is an attempt to avoid conflict. China was the largest economy in the world in 1900 but is was entirely agrarian. The CCP is extremely focused on internal stability.

[@artkoenig9434]

Thank you for your measured and historically based thesis.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

That was very intersting. Thank you very much, sir!

[@user-bf7jz3oq2l]

This is levelheaded commentary

[@user-qc9un1kq1v]

Dear Big Think, you should also put the guest name and job title on your introduction for easier search. Thanks

[@ihazaaxe]

麒麟葉 He's David Kang.

[@IizUname]

It's ironic that this guy is talking about how the dangers to the US are internal because Charles Koch is LITERALLY intensifying these conflicts.

[@thechloromancer3310]

I'd mention Soros as well. There are rich 'philathropists' on both sides adding to the chaos and instability.

[@orinlee6123]

Very informative listen. 🤟🏾

[@eal8645]

Well explained! Subscribed.

[@Cxlestiallshes2251]

Whats wrong with china?!? My parents are from china and they say its fun there

[@jackwood8307]

Thank you for very measured take on East Asia.

[@nsk370]

This is a really good video, with very good arguments presented.

[@youjunshi5329]

really great point! wish the leaders could all hear this.

[@Dragons_Armory]

A good piece. I often contend with the notion that European geopolitical model should be projected onto Asia as a default model for global politics. The highly competitive inter-state rivalries of old Europe was very different from the political order of east Asia. Across the span of the last 1500 years of European history you'd often find 2-3 wars within merely two decades and see kingdoms switch their alliances rapidly. Look at most of the wars that involved Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands in the 17-18th century and it's all over the place. Two would fight then quickly make up and team up against another before a decade has passed. Although this was the way of Europe until WW1, and not truly ended until after WW2, ancient and medieval Asia's nature was quite different. Conversely Asian powers are much more isolationist in a traditional conservative sense. Much more inward looking (except against the northern steppes for China) and most only cared about embalming the existing social order and let the peasants keep paying their taxes. Korea and Chinese dynasties would have long peace that lasted several centuries between each other, and Japan's Tokugawa Shogunate was for the most part 260 + years of peace and isolation. So to hear the westerners framing anything in Asia as "inevitable" is rather strange. The 4,000 years of Chinese dynastic cycles (which predated Thucydides btw) doesn't truly quite fit within this template- unless we are talking about rival lineages trying to displace each other to claim the realm: but again: internal.

[@scvnthorpe__]

You also see this with economics; people tend to model Singapore as a libertarian capitalist bulwark. Some however, call it 'socialist'. The truth is the economy, land law and customs just do not fit into western schemata in my view

[@blossoms978]

I think that is a good way to put it: they were isolationist in a traditional conservative sense, so they generally did not intervene in other kingdoms' affairs and shunned colonization. But they were not completely isolationist, in that they sought contact and trade with far-flung regions like the Mediterranean, hence the envoys to the West in the Han dynasty that led to the Silk Road. Also, there an was incredible amount of cultural exchange in the Tang dynasty with the rest of East Asia and beyond, resulting in the spread of the Chinese form of Buddhism and Tang architecture. I love how Zhang Yimou showed Chinese dancers clothed in very Indian-inspired costumes in House of Flying Daggers, a 2004 film. It really helped capture the fact that the Tang era was a very cosmopolitan era. The Sung was perhaps another. Other Chinese period were perhaps less so, but like Prof Kang noted, Chinese history goes in cycles.

[@brianpetersen3429]

Well said!

[@victorkmlee]

Very insightful views and advice.

[@danatentado6339]

what is his name, I don't see it mentioned in. the description or video.

[@kekero540]

Also Europe was a very warlike place. Anywhere in Europe there was always some kind of war. That’s one of the reasons they managed to conquer so much. Europe focused so intently on war that they managed to outcompete everyone.

[@wenl4901]

Thanks David for clearing up the fog! Fight On! Wen

[@AkiraSpectrum]

Some wonderful and thought-provoking arguments here.

[@adamwu6188]

great point!

[@jerrysong9957]

Even when ancient Chinese dynasties reached its peak，the normal thing they did were building the great wall for defense. Tang dynasty is the only exception.

[@simhopp]

Tang Dynasty was Xianbei, even though Han Chinese want to deny this fact. Qing Dynasty was Manchu, and they didn't build or repair the great wall either. Ming Dynasty was Han and they were very busy building and repairing the Great Wall.

[@jerrysong9957]

Wrong. Tang Dynasty royal family was mixed by Han and nomadic, but their father's side of the family were Han, so they self identify themselves as Han , and they even claimed they were descend of Lao Tzu.

[@kimcarrier9834]

simhopp Did those who claim Tang is Xianbei really have a brain? Li Shimin's coffin Board can be hold for no longer! 《旧唐书》唐太宗:“戎狄人面兽心，一旦微不得意，必反噬为害。” 《唐会要》 戎夏不杂，自古所诫。夷狄无信，易动难安，故斥居塞外，不迁中国。” 唐太宗： “此夷不服王化 可戮之。"

[@kuniphertze7112]

The Han ethnicity, historically speaking, was primarily passed down through the paternal line. If not, then the Machu emperors such as Kangxi and Qianlong would be Han instead of Manchurian because their moms were members of the Han Eight Banners. A large portion of earlier empresses and concubines of the Machu emperors were members of the Han Eight Banners (along with the Manchu Eight Banners and Mongol Eight Banners forms what historically known as Manchurian), which was comprised of Han Chinese. During the Qing Dynasty if you call the emperors Han you ganna get your head chopped off.

[@mw1327]

Slipped that "Koch Bros Foundation" by so fast it was almost subliminal!

[@whitter]

that, insightful

[@NastyCupid]

Internal struggles are indeed constantly present in huge countries, however a cure for these internal struggles has almost always been starting an external war to unite the people, so if a country is feeling internal struggle, you can bet they have plans for external conflict.

[@ercanpeker]

China has always had external security threats through its history. the Great Wall was not built agianst domestic troubles but against steppe warriors. Also he doesn't mention Yuan dynasty. And don't forget Opium Wars, Japanese Manchuria, too.

[@kingraptor6338]

ercan peker WRONG! In China case, internal happened first and caused external. 1.China itself divided into 3 pieces during mongol era.Xixia dynasty, Jin dynasty, and Southern Song dynasty. 2.During Qing dynasty, jurchen uprising and rebel against Ming control that area. Qing 8 banners army actually formed by Manchu, Mongol, Han chinese, Han defector etc . WIKIPEDIA Eight Banners of Qing that ethnic Manchus a minority within the Banners, making up only 16% in 1648, with Han bannermen dominating with 75% and Mongol Bannermen making up the rest.[12][13]It was this multi-ethnic force, in which Manchus were only a minority, which conquered China for the Qing. 3.Japan invaded manchuria during Chinese civil war era. Here the link for you to see the timeline. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXLLZXisYtFkr9U

[@33927859]

One reason I love this world is; this world divided into 2 amazing system. Eastern and Western, both culture and history are phenomenon. However, when we come to measurement on certain things or issues, we should also make standard into 2, East and West. China been big and huge for more than 2 thousand years. if you look at closely to Chinese history and territory Change, you will be surprise, even our population continuing getting in last 2 thousand years, China never expand and or colonized others. Chinese people love wealth, and make it growing and growing and finally making our saving balance looks nice, however, we won't waste money in war, invasion, colonization. We just wanna make money and do business with everyone ONLY.

[@moribguy5826]

He has a real practical analysis of the situation.

[@atxplus]

Totally agree with this video

[@sunnyd4645]

Finally someone exposed the plain truth.

[@Xocoa]

Who is this wonderful speaker? No mention of his name anywhere.

[@mw1327]

Because he works for the Koch Bros. Foundation. Now listen again.

[@RIPHitchens]

0:38

[@vidronin]

dornsife.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1024445

[@tkl3_01]

David Kang. Hes normally an expert in Korean affairs.

[@shilpapujari7097]

hiii

[@primednoble]

5:45 into it. Great point about internal strife causing turmoil more than external threats.

[@65carmelpic65]

very very corrected points !

[@Life_is_Shorts]

DAMN Finally someone speaking common Sense

[@GamersBar]

Just keep printing money and paying the chinese for stuff you can't afford to produce in america , im sure it will work out fine

[@jasminechen5409]

good talk, fair enough!

[@gbadesakin]

I agree with your analysis

[@angelic8632002]

A true historian know that to learn from the past you need to find a strong commonality with current events from back then, not just "These people have always lost wars before. Therefore they will loose again". That's lazy logic. Cultures shift, technology and geopolitics change with time. Is it "communism will always fail because its never worked before" or "Communism failed because x, y and z"?

[@biocapsule7311]

Indeed, the thing with China is that military action has never been their preferred method of influence. Since military conflict means instability... and China abhor instability. For most of their history, in terms of regional power, they are the country with everything. Most of their wars have been defensive because they are the country others wanted something from, it's usually when it''s in the decline phase. Whether waxing and waning, China has always been there. It always strikes me as funny about the US is that their greatest worries were things that hasn't rarely ever happen to them.

[@angelic8632002]

Apemanwithcalculator I only used that topic as an example. Not to make a point about communism.

[@polyseed12]

Apemanwithcalculator, I kind of agree. Marx didn't think you could skip the capitalist and socialist stage of economies, before becoming communist. He said a nation needed the tools and wealth created by capitalism to become socialist. I know socialism can work and be successful, it will be interesting is to see if China could finally be the one to pull it off.

[@alanfriesen9837]

I've always thought that China's gotten itself into an enviable position ideologically. As long as their state-guided capitalism satisfies the public they can ride with it. If it ever fails they can claim that that step in the process towards communism has run its course and it's time to move to the next step. Either way the party remains in control of government and the country avoids chaos.

[@marceelino]

+polyseed12 --> I know socialism can work and be successful? Please provide example.

[@thiendoanfarm]

Good video

[@BGomez-tk7lu]

Wise words. Respect

[@TheSharadwaador]

This was very educational

[@whyneedaname1269]

Trade war need to stop! There will never be a perfectly fair trade, it's just the matter of the degree of how much you cheat. People want to make as much profit out of each other as they can. It doesn't matter what they believe, all they want is money and more money. And, when you happen to be the richest, you wouldn't want anyone to take over your position. In the end only the common people sufferers, not these in charge.

[@darrenwalker3986]

Some sober thinking!

[@Runenut]

well said. i still find it ridiculous that some people blame external influences for so many things which require a bit of introspection.

[@TheyCallMeNewb]

What an unusual professorship title. A good piece of work here.

[@hootiegabriel9200]

Hope y’all noticed the Koch brothers sponsorship of this channel

[@holycrapchris]

Nope, just Charles.

[@shadekiller19]

Yep, unsubbed

[@phillip76]

If the lesson is reasonable, then what the fuck is the problem?

[@fredfrond6148]

Phillip agreed we can all learn from others. The Koch bros might be ruthless monopolists. But they are not dummies. You can learn from them but just keep the manipulation antennae on.

[@jonahwoodward3623]

Can you, or someone, please explain to me what they are and why they are bad?

[@donaldseekins6516]

This is an excellent lecture. Concerning domestic weakness, it is intriguing that Chinese dynasties, including the Han and the Tang, fell largely because elite groups managed to get special tax-exempt status for their estates (the same thing happened in pre-feudal Japan, as well) which robbed the central government of resources it needed to survive and impoverished the remaining taxpayers, independent farmers. The Republican policy of tax cuts for the rich could have come out of a playbook titled "how to weaken and destroy a strong state."

[@chrisbyrne7593]

Well Said.

[@Tombbistol]

In my opinion the biggest obstacle of development in the west, is people's way of thinking. People in the west are used to be the center and the peak of the world, they aren't really willing to see the east for what it is ,the majority's people's view about Asia (especially China) still stays at the 70s , Europe's status stays still for the recent 30 or 40 years but China keeps developing , most Europeans visited China are surprised that China's way more advanced than they thought , compare to Beijing and Shangai, many famous European cities like Paris actually feel short in many departments, and people in the west don't want to acknowledge that, most of them still believe in the old stereotypes about Asia in the 70s.

[@chongyeeyap9586]

Trying to talk China to be like Japan and stagnate China 's progress, NO deal.

[@monodescarado]

There are few things I disagree with about this video: 1. We can completely ignore lessons of the past that involve ancient Greece, ancient China, etc. The world is much more globalized now. We have the internet. Things are extremely different and warfare is fought on so many different fronts (including military, cyber, trade, propaganda, etc). We can't sit here and say 'we must ignore the lessons of ancient Europe' but 'we should take lesson from ancient China into consideration' just because of their size and location in the world. So much has changed over millennia that lessons from back then are no longer applicable. 2. There are few threats from within that the CCP can't handle. Singer getting too big for her boots? Disappear her and make her pay millions in taxes. Muslims having their own religion and want independence? Make internment camps for 'reeducation' legal. People having independent thoughts against their government? Make a credit rating system based on their online behaviour and purchases and make their friend disown them if these point against party lines. The Dali Larma gaining international support? Have the Pancha Larma replaced so that he can pick the next Dali Larma and wait til the man dies. There won't be an 'own goal'. The worst thing that could happen to them is a power struggle within the higher echelons of the government - but Xi has had almost all of his enemies in the government arrested for 'corruption', now owns the media, has signed himself on to be chairman-for-life and really isn't going anywhere anytime soon. On top of all that, the people love him. 3. China almost certainly is a growing power and has been making premeditated waves for many years now. The one thing that the rest of the world doesn't understand about China is how premeditated they are. They are fives moves ahead. South China sea looks like petty region squabbles, but they will take it and own the trade routes. They are making moves into Africa to stabalize their transition from a production/export economy into a service economy. They have been manipulating ports all around the world for some time to set up their silk road initiative, which will allow them to become the biggest importers/consumers in the world and still get decent decent deals on trade. While each US President constantly undoes what the last one put in place and the nation bickers over abortion rights, climate change and coal mines, China pushes forward with renewable energy research, genetic engineering and global internet propaganda/control. While I do not believe there will be any war anytime soon, this video seriously underestimates the progression China will make in the next five to ten years.

[@minmaungmaung8129]

Food for thought; an unbiased analysis.

[@keking2178]

Wow this blow my mind.

[@S2Tubes]

America is a declining power? When were they more powerful than now? Trade has replaced war. It's hardly going to end the same way as ancient Greece. Edit: He pretty much covered that by the end. Internal issue are a bigger problem for both.

[@johnpleung]

also consider that this administration's been pulling out of leadership positions and alliances left and right: TPP, iran nuke deal, climate accord, UN human rights council. they're eyeing NATO as well. this severely hurts our perception, not to mention the more direct and practical effects.

[@TheCJUN]

"When were they more powerful than now?" The 1940s and 50s. The world single largest creditor, the worlds by far biggest military, the worlds by far biggest economy relative to any other nation, biggest chunk of world trade etc etc.

[@unathorizdwatermelon]

America is absolutely a declining power, it's not an argument, it's just a fact. Do some research.

[@sushanalone]

It is one.

[@unathorizdwatermelon]

Marxist Hedonist Secular Demon Both your statements are incorrect.

[@muhammadabdullahhanif8860]

The real question about China is do you really want an orwellian regime have such massive influence on internasional stage?

[@ardiansulaj9521]

鹿 鹿 no you are one party state its more worst than communism your are doomed

[@ardiansulaj9521]

鹿 鹿 you have internal conflict because you dont have demokracy that s why you need more than one party understand now

[@ardiansulaj9521]

鹿 鹿 no im not usa are examplr of democracy of liberalism of inovation they and europe has hav inovation 100 % of tecnology of our planet you chines only copy our tecnology and thats it we are millenia ahead you that s why your communist rulers bgring their families and money in west you are just mediaval country communist and mesy one

[@NoName-ie8df]

鹿 鹿 agree

[@ardiansulaj9521]

鹿 鹿 usa england spain germany france holand belgium canada australia new zeland sweden norway austria italy they have robed no one contruary to china who their rulers robe people and they bring their money and families in west you chinese will be as always 100 maybe 200 years behinde west

[@jparsit]

Agreed with you David, none really deeply understand of each other, it is the fear and sense of insecure. Stop the war and working together, so simple as that.

[@Youngcl77]

Some great point made by your video thank you, western media needs to learn about Asia before talking about it

[@rnjsgusdyd93]

since when did the koch brothers infiltrate bigthink?

[@timeforsuchaword]

Quite a while ago

[@1stPCFerret]

Since they dumped tons of money into it to allow them to use it as a channel for right-wing groupthink.

[@impalabeeper]

1stPCFerret To be fair, Big Think isn't just trying to air both views. Big Think is still left leaning though.

[@WRARRior]

So the bulk of his argument is "Don't use European history to gauge modern international relations, but DO use *specific* Asian history to gauge modern international relations." Seems like a pretty small piece of the pie.

[@jayzee316]

yes when ur forecasting east asian countries use east asian history. when you forecast europe, use european history.

[@jayzee316]

no, all history is too general to apply in any specific situation/region, the problem being discussed is predicting the future/motivation of a very specific region, so the best solution is to look at the specific history. To use all history to predict all regions would be like saying all medicine is good for all conditions, if your doctor said that to you, I think you'd be a bit concerned.

[@kongwee1978]

You can use China Qin Empire. China is like Qin state in early Shang Yang era in Warring State. Five or six state form alliance to destroy Qin. But Qin survive in diplomatic way. Breaking up alliance. In today context, yes the West is like breaking into EU and US. China just watching the drama.

[@kongwee1978]

Warring State is quite a good example. They were under a dynasty, but the emperor was pretty useless. All state acted pretty like a sovereignty country. They had their own currency, writing and unit standard.

[@jayzee316]

No, i'm not saying exclude european history when judging/forecasting asia, but you wouldnt use euro-centric view as default would you? you start with asian history and then go expand, if what you're applying still doesn't make sense, there's more than 1 ingredient, just different percentage and you wouldn't cook an asian dish with mostly european ingredient/spices would you?

[@eupraxis1]

More Koch Foundation! I'm going to have to reconsider this channel.

[@Mageroeth]

Another Koch video. So is it safe to say this channel has been bought by them?

[@bonecanoe86]

The best channel out there to learn about China is by far ADVChina.

[@Prometheukles]

You might give serpentza a try too

[@byc6230]

I would say they are biased fact, which means they subjectly explaining an object fact.

[@jamesmitchell2704]

I lived in China for 3 years, and I got over everything they talk about after the first year there.

[@jamesmitchell2704]

Southern laowai are just soft...

[@BoissonMedia]

Agreed.

[@lisa.e5776]

We have been neighbouring with China for thousand of years. It's always been there and always big. We traded and lived with the Chinese people (migrated from China). They are just ordinary people who hope to make a better living for them and their families. More importantly, they never colonised or invaded my country. Sea

[@karwaaaan]

Thank you

[@smithgeorge8234]

Knowledgeable smart person

[@LienRanMizunagi]

As a mix blood descent of East Asian countries (Quarter Chinese, Quarter Japanese,Half Filipino), I thank you for giving consideration towards the way we look at conflicts, I've lived a bit in Fujian and Osaka at a short time, although I get the cursory glances which indicate suspicion I've always been able to find common ground, one time due to my inquisitive nature I've asked my neighbors about the noise I hear at some nights and he said a Chinese proverb like "worry about your own wife in your own house for if I worry about my own you'd never be bothered" something like that (my Hokkien is trash) and when I visited my in-laws at Osaka it was quite the same experience as well. I think this almost sums up the video's cultural point of discussion, everyone in those countries are so worried on how they project themselves internally rather than the facade.

[@AdamBlankenship1]

It's best to keep one's own state intact; to defeat the enemy state is only second best.

[@stephencyang6628]

Mr. Kang is so right. China is a different culture, not to be defined and feared by western terms.

[@rollinmc5427]

spot on

[@afgaggheh]

Smart thinking

[@vocalbc]

Well said. Wise guy

[@donjohnstone3707]

Everything everywhere is always changing, so that no time in history is like any other time in history. Making forecasts and predictions about the future, based on past history, can never be reliably accurate when many of the underlying factors and circumstances are always changing and have their own uniquely evolving characteristics at any given time. Only the broadest of analytical forecasts can be made about the future relationship and interactions between China and America. General or specific assumptions about the current and past factors and circumstances affecting their fluid relationship, involves many unknown and changeable details and dynamics, that may or may not impact negatively or positively on how they respond to each other, into the future. Speculating about that future is fraught with uncertainty in our fast changing world and nothing can be taken for granted.

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

This argument that we are comparing America vs China with Athens vs Sparta is misleading. Humans havent changed alot during these 4 thousand years. History has proven countless times that the idea of a rising and a declining power clashing is more or less a fact. Its not always the case but it usually is. To say that we are "biased" because of history and to say "this time it will be different" is on an almost suicidal level of naiveness. Also: considering china views taiwan as an internal issue and america has promised to protect taiwan war is inevitable.

[@rasmusrasmusson]

It's interesting to hear someone talking about domestic threat, for a change. The focus on external threat is so strange, as it is so rare. Invasion wars are mostly in the past. After world war 2 there has been maybe 10 such wars, typically involving US, Russia and Iraq. All other military conflicts are domestic.

[@garyjohnson1466]

Good points, I agree, when one studies history, most if not all historians will agree that one greatest threats always come from within, in one form or another, greed, division due to religion, wealth, education, poverty etc, anything that divides, all plays a roll in every nation decline…

[@themiddlekingdom9121]

Mr. David Kang made valid points.

[@codediporpal]

James Mattis agrees that most of our challenges are internal, and he's Secretary of Defense.

[@jparsit]

Well said the corporates media included this one all after the $$$, so always be an aware step ahead and be happy. Life is good if detached from materialistic and be yourself, work, save and travel to see the real world that will make you a happy person. One thing is always compassion to others.

[@gus7814]

Really great video, and David is definitely right that IR scholars always look to European history to explain all events whether they be in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. However, I think David underplays the likelihood of conflict. Yes he is right that it is unlikely that Beijing and Washington are going to decide on some arbitrary date to start a war, because wars don't start that way. Wars start from displays of strength or from 'accidents' that have repercussions beyond what is typically wanted, sometimes not even involving both of the principle belligerents. Examples such as Napoleon III brinkmanship diplomacy prior to the Crimean War, or the assassination of the Duke Ferdinand, or the Bohemian Revolt leading to the 30 Years War. What we see with China's expansion is not aggression, but has the seeds for conflict. Claiming territorial waters that are traditionally and legally belonging to other states may lead to the collision between fishing vessels. This could lead to popular revolts against the Chinese in countries such as the Philippines or Japan with embassies being attacked or Chinese businesses being torched. This would lead to increased tension between countries as they prepare their forces, requiring only one more catalyst before igniting a large-scale conflict. David is right that the US and China don't want war. But sometimes it's not up to them. Sometimes events happen, as seen in World War One in which Britain was compelled to join the war despite the assassination of Duke Ferdinand having nothing to do with Britain, but the subsequent German invasion of Austria triggered Britain's alliance and need to seek a European balance of power.

[@dhrumilbarot1431]

Good