Greetings bushbred,

I could put that civilizations sustain themselves through expansion and unification. Retaining economic and military power and internal cohesion are at the centre. Not also civilizations have attempted to achieve the goals in the same. Albeit, War would seem to standout. In the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations Royal marriages were important, after conquest. Alexander the Great married of his sister (?) to the family of Darius II. A child (assassinated) between Julius Caesar and Cleopatra was once seen as a probable vehicle for the unification of Egypt (itself two kingdoms) and Rome. In more modern times, we have seen monarchies over both England and France. In the 1800s and 1900s, relationship was diluted to become alliances. Victoria, in this regard, is said, to be the mother of Europe.

Addressing this thread initiated by Reginald, we need to include China:

Over two thousand years ago, China went through feudal and waring states periods, but latter periods of unification and disunification. With the exception of the early (c.1400) Ming period (1368-1644), China has attempted to sustain its Union of (Lots of Abraham Lincolns in Chinese history).

The goal was to build a harmonious state built on Confucianism and to a lesser extent Daoism. The former focusing of hierarchies and obliged relationships. The latter, the antithesis of atomism, examined complementarity and fields (forces/flows). The upshot being that suppression, even sadistic punishments (skinning people alive), was applied/directed internally to maintain unity and merit; whilst the emperor still held his Mandate of the Son of Heaven in the Middle Kingdom. The arrows point inwards.

In the case on America, we had the US civil war. An economic war for the South (agricultural); and, a War of preservation of the Union for the North (industrialised). Slavery and exploited Northern free labour were on the sidebar.

Like Ancient to Modern China, the nineteen States needed to consolidate unification. The right to leave the Union, the right to secede, would have been seen as just by French Enlightenment Thinkers only one century before. The arrows point inward.

cont./*

*/cont.

In the nineteenth century, the US expanded under the Manifest Destiny: The US fought England, France, the Canadian colonies, Texas (a country in 1949), Mexico and many indigenous clans. This represented claims and conquest: From the perspective of the original thirteen colonies, the Manifest Destiny represented expansion. The arrows point outwards from the first colonies' centre.

During the time of American economic and territory expansion, England’s military might perhaps reached its peak, but turned-downwards suddenly in the twentieth century. Colonisation was on the way out. Market economies were on the way in.

After WWI, Germany forced to scuttle many ships. Even England, needed to reduce its fleet the size of the US fleet. So, c. 1910-1950, there was a shift from England being THE military power and the US being AN economic power. The role of Centre State of West was passed to the US SUPERPOWER, giving rise to your (bushbred's) perception of a Pax America: The US as THE military power and THE Economic power.

Relating Reginald's thread; China and America, I suggest, stand at different poles on several dimensions: The US fears external threats. US arrows point outwards global domination. The US fears incoming arrows: e.g., terrorists and illegal aliens.

China, by way of contrast, fears internal disharmony, challenges to governance and collapse. It’s (unification) arrows point inwards. China fears arrows, from within, threatening central power of the Communist Party: e.g., economic mafias, counter philosophies and internal economic disparities leading to civil disharmonies.

Globally, societies meet... Developing on Reginald’s points: Daoism might have a chance at building cross-cultural bridges. That is, The West’s capacity to use science and to innovate, PLUS THE COMPLEMENT, the East’s ability to apply holism to think non-scientifically to improve existing technologies. In SUM, Daoism could prove mutually beneficial.

However, to achieve effect partnership, the East must accept the value of (non-Kin) Horizontal Altruism and the West must accept Holism to be as valid as is Reductionism. The rub is; "there cannot be two suns in the sky" (Chinese proverb).

cont./Tomorrow

I think we need a new foriegn policy, let's get the rodent on the phone to Connie Rice so that she can tell him what it will be.

Bushbred

Dr Kenny's three memes are interesting and not too far from the mythologies of the three cities I identify in 'A Confucian-Daoist Millennium?' as central to the Anglo-American tradition -= Jerusalem (faith, dogma and false prophets), Athens (narrow and limiting rationalism) and Rome (source of the frontier plundering corporate spirit). This may stretch things a little but I think we are seeking to identify something similar in the contemporary West.

Oliver, I am not sure what it achieves to highlight specific atrocities as all peoples commit them. It is interesting, nevertheless, that China has made great sacrifices in recent times to achieve unity and it might even be possible to argue that it demands more of its own than of others. It would, however, be unwise to count on that.

My overriding interest is not to argue which tradition is more virtuous (although the Twelve Civil Offensives illustrate the dangers of lack of virtue) but rather to explore the forces apparently transforming and shaping our near future. In this I suspect we may be approaching a discovery that will seriously compromise our pride in Western science and its greed for endless frontier conquest.

Reg

Reg and bushbreed,

In no way was it my intention to malign Chinese society. Before 1700 in the West, it was dangerous to have an accurate understanding of celestial mechanics and understanding of Humankind’s place in the universe. I think it was Marx (?), who said, “the difference between the Catholics and the Protestants was how long they roasted their victims”.

In writing about torture, my mind turned to a particular case, from the Qing Dynasty (cited in Francis Hsu), where a daughter stuck her mother-in-law. As a consequence of this minor breach Filial Piety in a Patrimonial State, the daughter and many relatives were tortured (especially males) and the village education official exiled. In fact, my comments were highly diluted, against the sad fate many people. The point of post was the Chinese extreme response turned was inwards towards (suppression) maintenance of internal conformity. Don’t deviate, or else!

CONT./

Oliver

The point is well made and is important. I am not sure, however that aberrations of enforced conformity are widely spread. The West is certainly not lacking in them, although often in the name of the State rather than social order.

Reg