Chindia
- Thread starter aware of emptiness
- Start date
As most boring things are.Glen said:
Maybe they're would be reeeeeeally long tunnels too.
I have trouble believing any type of union is at all plausible, or even possible. Both China and India had too strong of cultures to be assimilated. Think of it this way- every invader that entered China or India and tried to impose his culture on his new subjects had his empire completely absorbed into the fabric of Chinese or Indian culture(s). I mean, China managed to turn the fucking MONGOL HORDE into productive Chinese citizens. Alexander, Mohamad of Ghazni, Babur- all were brought into the warm, comforting fold in Indian culture. Both cultures are too vibrant to be overwhelmed by the other.
Hendryk
Banned
Indeed, this is a debate we've had before. Flocc and I are in agreement that the cultural differences between India and China preclude anything remotely resembling a civilizational merger; the closest you can get is basically what happened in OTL, the introduction of one civilization's religion to the other (along with nifty concepts in the field of mathematics, which did come in handy).Flocculencio said:
Politically now, it is conceivable that parts of India may under certain circumstances become vassals to a seafaring Chinese empire. But acknowledging the Dragon Throne as one's overlord hardly amounts to adopting Chinese culture if one already has a stable, well-defined cultural identity. Historically Chinese culture spread to neighboring regions by direct protracted contact. That's what happened with Vietnam, Korea and Japan (in the latter's case there never was an overlordship to speak of, but the elites decided of their own accord to transplant as much of the Chinese culture as they could--the Confucian social order is just so incredibly convenient when you're the one in charge). Compare the Vietnamese culture to the Laotian and Cambodian ones, which received Indian rather than Chinese influence.
That pretty much sums it up. While both culture may influence each other to some extent, neither would even try to assimilate the other. Even in the unlikely event of both places forming a single polity, the cultural distinction would remain.srv fan said:
Flocculencio
Donor
Hendryk said:
Oh definitely- like what happened with Malacca. They acknowledged Chinese overlordship for political reasons but China had little influence on their own Malay culture. In fact weren't there some Indian kingdoms in the Lower Ganges area which became vassals of the Son of Heaven?
If not by forceful assimilation or domination of one culture over another, could China and India at least form a friendly alliance of some sort?
I'm not sure but the current tensions between the two arose only during the latter half of the 20th century, right, because of border disputes and other recent political stuff? So before, then, did the two countries have relatively good relations?
I'm not sure but the current tensions between the two arose only during the latter half of the 20th century, right, because of border disputes and other recent political stuff? So before, then, did the two countries have relatively good relations?
Also regarding the issue of whether China and India share much in common, do you think this passage by Okakura Kakuzo accurately reflects the cultural reality?
ASIA is one. The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.
ASIA is one. The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.
No offense, but that is a terrible quote. Just because the author of it sounds East Asian doesnt excuse him from promulgating pieces of Orientalist stereotype trash. Yep all "Asiatics" (whatever that means) love them some "Ultimate and Universal" and leave all the scientific particulars to the Occident. The fact that China and India invented the almost all the technologies that gave the West a boost up is irrelevant- right?
I'm not going to even seriously address the fact that this guy claims that Asiatics created all the religions of the world and the Mediterraneans created the other stuff. Now I could be wrong, but I could swear the Holy Lands- y'know, the place where the three major Abrahamic religions were founded- is on the Mediterranean. Does that mean Syrians and Israelis get to love the Universal AND the Particular?!!! NO FAIR
I think what the author is trying to get at (although I guess he exagerrates it) is that in East Asian and South Asian lands there seem to have originated a religious/philosophical worldview not shared by those further west (Europe and Middle East), dividing the monotheistic heaven-and-hell Abrahamic worldviews from the more holistic, cyclic Dharmic worldviews. In that sense, Islam is still closer to the European "West" than India or the Far East.
Although there is kind of a vague and simplistic generalization, as there is no straight dividing line (eg. religions like Sihkism that syncretize Abrahamic with Dharmic views).
Although there is kind of a vague and simplistic generalization, as there is no straight dividing line (eg. religions like Sihkism that syncretize Abrahamic with Dharmic views).
Its too vague and generalized to really mean much. I can somewhat see the point if the author was just referring to India- Hinduism is definately very different in how it views the world. But even then, there is a pretty strong argument (especially found in the Muslim world) that Christianity is a lot more polythestic than we think- the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, Satan, Mary, all the angels, etc.
His point loses relevence when applied to Confucian and Buddhist countries. Confucianism isnt really even a religion in the theological sense- its set of ethics, with no metaphysics attached to it. Buddhism is somewhat similar, but again, doesnt fit into the ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE divide very neatly.
How about (not necessarily religious) holism vs. dualism
Western (Including Middle Eastern) logic seems more into categorizing things into categories, making it seem reductionistic as well as absolute
eg. God vs. man, man vs. nature or that self/world is an illusion
Further Eastern logic seems to have a flexible, holistic view (Eg. Hinduism of India and Taoist/Yin-Yang concepts of China) that we are one with the universe, God/gods and nature.
Some say that Western views on logic helped them develop modern science, and the fact that they see themselves as separate from nature and God giving them dominion over nature also helped them develop experimenting with/exploiting it, while the Eastern view that we are part of nature and should live in harmony with it instead of try and subdue/exploit it was detrimental to the development of science.
But then again, the Eastern holistic viewpoint has shown to apply to some scientific concepts such as quantum physics, where Western logic fails.
Western (Including Middle Eastern) logic seems more into categorizing things into categories, making it seem reductionistic as well as absolute
eg. God vs. man, man vs. nature or that self/world is an illusion
Further Eastern logic seems to have a flexible, holistic view (Eg. Hinduism of India and Taoist/Yin-Yang concepts of China) that we are one with the universe, God/gods and nature.
Some say that Western views on logic helped them develop modern science, and the fact that they see themselves as separate from nature and God giving them dominion over nature also helped them develop experimenting with/exploiting it, while the Eastern view that we are part of nature and should live in harmony with it instead of try and subdue/exploit it was detrimental to the development of science.
But then again, the Eastern holistic viewpoint has shown to apply to some scientific concepts such as quantum physics, where Western logic fails.
Last edited:
srv fan said:
Well, I was just wondering whether (Hindu) India and China would feel any more unity to one another than to the "Western" world. Also, whether they would maybe form an alliance or something in response to the West and European domination. I don't know, just a whim.
Flocculencio
Donor
aware of emptiness said:
Sorry, but that's a load of tripe as srv says and seems to owe more to European ideas of Orientalism than to any actual reality. Also, as he points out, Confucianism is more of an ethical code than a religion per se, Buddhism is something in between a philosophy and a religion and Hinduism is a catchall term for a very vague set of cultural and metaphysical philosophies which have superimposed themselves over the local religions- for example, there's one general pantheon of Hindu gods and beliefs but on the local level Hinduism differs quite radically from region to region.
Anyway before the late 19th Century there wasn't even any concept of India as anything more than a general cultural area so it would be hard to pull off an alliance with china since all the various Indian states wouldn't be working together. It's like asking if there was any chance for an alliance between Europe and China- it doesn't apply because "Europe" (before the idea of the EU arose) was nothing more than a geographical and vaguely cultural description.
Flocculencio
Donor
Othniel said:
Trouble is that by the time the Moguls conquered Northern India they had already been Persianised and were culturaly completely different from the branch which went East to China.
Floid said:
The thing is, where would you put the capital. Would China accept Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta? Would India accept Peking, Shanghai, etc?
Maybe you could get this with a radically different world. Say, the Chinese start colonising and stuff in the 14th century, industrialising and things like that, and India could end up as a colony of China as it was a colony of Britain.
But that puts us actually close to uniting the world... And I don´t know how such a large empire could last.Anyway good luck with the project, despite the fact that most of us here disregard it as impossible, I´m sure you can do something cool with it. (Even if people would want to categorise it as ASB)