rénlèi běnxìng

Hans aren’t particularly tribal – it’s just that Western are unnaturally, and religiously so, universalistic.

RISE OF THE HANS

With China’s new prominence in global affairs, the Han race, which constitutes 90 percent of the Chinese population, is suddenly the most dominant cohesive ethnic group in the world — and it is seeking to remain that way through strategic alliances, aggressive trade policy, and attacks on racial minorities within the country’s boundaries. The less tribally cohesive, more fragmented West is, meanwhile, losing out….

…This represents a major shift in the identity of the Chinese tribe, a combination of political and economic power with a very homogeneous worldview. The best way to explain China’s economic and foreign policy is most accurately seen as a tribal expression of what Friedrich Nietzsche called a “will to power.” Essentially, the Han has become a tribal superpower that treats other groups — from China’s non-Han minority to much of the rest of the world — as a vast semi-colonial periphery. And with its growing economic and military might, Han China may soon be able to impose its will on some of these “lesser” cultures, should it desire..

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to rénlèi běnxìng

  1. nikcrit says:

    The implication from the thrust of this overall article is that Han Chinese ascendancy contrasts with an increasingly racially and ethnically fractures Europe and America.
    But if tthat’s correct, I wonder: when did Europe or America ever have a culture anywhere near as homogenuous as N.E. China’s? I mean christian soveigrn european states or ‘countries’ undoubtedly share a core culture via christianity, but the language and more external cultural differences are still deep; and prior to the 1930s, most of America’s racial and ethnic tensions were intra-group European class oppression and struggles; (and to the extent white Americans did pull-it-togehter to create a common ethos and identity, I think there’ s more than a little validity to say that they did it by contrasting themselves culturally against NAMs, using it numerical minority to turn it into an outclass.
    I make that last point not to put forth a racial argument or dissent, but to say that a white ‘culture’ formed in such a way is quite fragile and in the earliest stages of maturation.

    I also question the legitimacy of this statement from the article. *(though, overall, i thought it was an interesting piece; also, the idea of ‘newgeography.com itself is an intriguing academic subdiscipline, as i’d never heard of this journal before).

    here’s the quote:

    Europe today can best be seen as divided between three cultural tribes: Nordic-Germanic, Latin, and Slavonic. In the north, there is a vast region of prosperity, a zone of Nordic dynamism.

    where, exactly, would Italy and Spain fit in here? i mean, not quite Latin, but not Nordic-Germanic in the common sense; it’s as if he’s creating a artificial polarity or contrast here, as plenty of modern Italians exemplify the ‘white-west’ without naturally generating friction with Europe’s other core factiions, right?

    • Chuck says:

      Many people, particularly Chinese themselves, argue that Han (+ the assimilated non Han people — like the Manchu) China is rather diverse. They point out the regional subcultural, linguistic, and historic differences; they point out the genetic differences — which don’t exist to the magnitude that they imagine; and they point out that China for an extensive period of time was a complex of waring kingdoms.

      By my estimate, Han China was about as genetically, culturally, and historically homogeneous as White Europe, prior to the spread of European nationalism. Europe, after all, was not just held together by religion — but by a common cultural and perception. That’s why Nazi’s idealized the Spartans, why you can find latin translations of any major work before the 1700’s, and why Thomas Jefferson speaks of the White, European Greco-roman legacy. I’m really not sure where this Europe was a heterogeneous mix comes from — though I have my suspicions. Let me quote a passage from Jung: “I will therefore not make the assertion that the white race in general, or occidental nations in particular, are diseased, or that the western world is on the verge of collapse..” I quote that passage, because it represents a common pre-40’s way of thinking about the white western European man — and because it foreshadows the changes to come, which eventually cumulated in a historic amnesia.

      So, no I don’t think that Han China was significantly ore or less homogeneous than White Europe.

      As for American Whites, I would agree that NAM’s were used as an outclass, that is, that Whiteness was, in part, negatively defined. I would point out, though, that there was a deep early positive sense to it — which explain why Irish, Slavs, etc were not classified as NAMS from 1770 on (Naturalization Law of 1970). And which explains this sentiment:

      “This government was made on the basis of white basis…It was made for white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever” — Stephen Douglas

      Instead of contending that whiteness was invented in 1770 — or more accurately the 1600’s — to define an outclass, I think that it’s more reasonable to content that an outclass what defined from the point of not being white — as defined in some fuzzy sense of European — and this had a recursive effect (which is what you describe). I would nonetheless agree that White American and for that matter White Europe was fragile, yet I would note that the fragility of whiteness doesn’t explain the success of multiculturalism, if that’s how you are reasoning. Remember, Sweden and Britain have embraced multiculturalism just as much as the US — the Swedish Elites say that Swedish people don’t exist or only exist as an inclusive every culture just as much as the US elites say that about Western or White people. It makes no sense to argue that US whites were susceptible because they lacked a deep common ethnicity and then to say that European Swedes and English, groups with deep common ethnicities, embraced it because they lacked a common sense of whiteness. Getting back to Jung, I think a more reasonable positions would be that the White Western world in general and occidental nations in particular embraced multiculturalism — and now other groups, such as Koreans are following — because they shared common western traits, or a common way which developed in the West.

      (The real question is, is this way (cultural universalism) idiosyncratic to the West and to Western influenced peoples, as the author suggests, or is it some universal way that Western people first pioneered, like science and which every group will inevitable embrace. Obviously, the US and European ‘far’ right think the former and everyone left of Pat Buchanan is dogmatically convinced of the latter. To put it another way, either the (European) West in transforming itself into the global center is destroying itself in a fit of delirium or the (European) West is consuming itself to birth a global world — Now I find it odd that people of Buchanan’s ilk are called supremacists by everyone to the left of him, when everyone to the left of him is arguing that the West’s model is a superior way for the rest.)

      As for your last point, my sense is that the divide is between the New Arab-Muslim/African Europeans and the old Christian-indigenous Europeans — and to me it’s not clear if it will break down on racial or religious lines. When you look at the demographics, the point about Nordic-Germanic, Latin, and Slavonic tribes makes no sense. All those people are going to be minorities in 3 generations given current trends. As that sentence is incongruous with the authors point of a mixed Europe — I’m inclined to think that he added that point to soften his former.

  2. nikcrit says:

    “By my estimate, Han China was about as genetically, culturally, and historically homogeneous as White Europe, prior to the spread of European nationalism. Europe, after all, was not just held together by religion — but by a common cultural and perception.”

    Now that I think about it, I do recall you making the same point some time ago on GW; it was a fallacious post in which someone was claiming that Italy was not on par with the rest of Europe in terms of its historical achievements!

    I guess the problem in my original comment here was that I don’t know enough about the particulars, let alone purity, of Han Chinese culture —– currently or historically. But if indeed Han-Asian vs. Europe-American-white culture is about the same in terms of its homogenity, then I would then say, how much has that really changed in America? I mean, ‘white-west’ thought, culture, still prevails; to me, the multicultural trappings really only promote superficial renouncement of European culture/values; it’s mainly a lobbying tool for material ‘spoils,’ as you say —– but it’s not like their not assimilating in core ways, via language, education, etc. I mean, i know it’s different in CAli and along the borders, but the significant hispanic portion of MPS school district is 95%+ bilingual with spanish being the weaker of their languages. And while there’s issues with the avg. I.Q. being driven down by the steady increase in NAM birthrates and illegal immigration flow, isn’t much of the Han-Asian rise consisting of rural peasantry? I mean, our elite can still stand its own against theirs in terms of business know-how, innovation, patents, etc.
    What’s the real threat? Just the sheer size and buying power of that relatively homogeneous group?

  3. Chuck says:

    “I mean, our elite can still stand its own against theirs in terms of business know-how, innovation, patents, etc.What’s the real threat? Just the sheer size and buying power of that relatively homogeneous group?”

    I think that this is what the guy is getting at. Naturally, I look at this differently. As I see it, “our elite” see themselves as a global elite. So they are not ours. And since they are not ours, they are effectively a foreign rule. Given that I am being ruled by a foreign rule, I see no difference between being ruled by a foreign rule who pretends to not be foreign and one who is honest about being foreign; in fact, I’d probably appreciate the latter more. As such, under no circumstance could the rise of China be a problems for me.
    That said, China is a threat to the global elite, since the Chinese elite do not see themselves as a global elite, but as a national elite. And internationalist systems only work if everyone is willing to play ball the same way. In the same way that communism can only work if everyone embraces it, internationalism can only work if everyone embraces it. If the Chinese elite does not play ball, our economy will dip and those international elitists running it will find themselves up against the wall.

  4. nikcrit says:

    “Let me quote a passage from Jung: “I will therefore not make the assertion that the white race in general, or occidental nations in particular, are diseased, or that the western world is on the verge of collapse..” I quote that passage, because it represents a common pre-40′s way of thinking about the white western European man — and because it foreshadows the changes to come, which eventually cumulated in a historic amnesia. <

    No biggie,, but when you get a minute, could you briefly clarify what you're getting at with the quote and your interpretation of it? This 'pre-'40s" way of thinking about the white-west European man? Was that sort-of Puritan caution and fear about modernism? Angst stemming from that and existing in the period that was post-WWI and impening WWII? And what was the context of that Jung quote? Finally, are you saying the 'historic amnesia' is modern white-west forgetting its racially bonded past (e.g., forgetting that, like how jefferson fondly cites Greco-Roman past, that white-west allegiances and culture clearly transcend national and religious ties)?

    • Chuck says:

      “Race” can be used in multiple ways. Here, for example, is the Spengler-Nietzschean sense:

      “Race purity is a grotesque word in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike—that is, healthy—generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had “race,” to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.

      This manifests itself above all in self-evident elemental fecundity, in an abundance of children, which historical life can consume without ever exhausting the supply. God is, in the familiar words of Frederick the Great, always on the side of the big battalions, and now if ever this shows itself. The millions who fell in the World War were the pick of all the white world had in the way of race, but the test of race is the speed with which it can replace itself. A Russian once said to me: “The Russian woman will make good in ten years what we sacrificed in the Revolution.” That is the right instinct. Such races are irresistible. Spengler, The Hour of Decision, 1934 “

  5. Chuck says:

    “No biggie,, but when you get a minute, could you briefly clarify what you’re getting at with the quote and your interpretation of it?”

    You can read Jung yourself. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12363296/the-spiritual-problem-of-modern-man-jung

    By pre-40’s way of thinking I mean having a sense of cultural history. A connectedness to the past. If by ‘racially bonded past’ you mean a connection to the past, then that’s what I meant. That sense of ‘race,’ of course, is different from the HBD sense. Generally, I consider White Western man’s identification with biological race (or anti-race) to be a sort of objectified spirituality. To put it another way, identifying with biological race is just one (idiosyncratic) way of identifying with history or race in the inclusive sense (i.e roots). I was discussing this with someone else:

    “The issue with regards to 2nd wold immigration is traditional western cultural continuity. Often that’s expressed as ‘genetic’ or ‘racial’ continuation among members here. That’s, in part, because an admittedly superficial objective frame of thinking is part of our cultural way of seeing (Refer to Nisbett and Masuda, 2003. Culture and point of view); that is, ‘race,’ or our objective existence as a people, is part of our cultural spirit; that might seem odd, but the traditional West never explored the subjective side of being in the way other great traditions did — so, Christianity apart, that’s what we have as a “spiritual” identity, one dimensional as it might be. To quote Jung:

    “This restriction to the so-called material or concrete reality of objects perceived by the senses is a product of a particular way of thinking-the thinking that underlies “sound common sense” and our ordinary use of language. It operates on the celebrated principle “Nihil est in intellectu quod non antea fuerit in sensu,” regardless of the fact that there are very many things in the mind which did not derive from the data of the senses. According to this view, everything is “real” which comes, or seems to come, directly or indirectly from the world revealed by the senses. This limited picture of the world is a reflection of the one-sidedness of Western man. “The Real and the Surreal” (1933). In CW 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. P.745

    Regardless, the concern is about our tradition — however understood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s