> "China does not have a history of creating empires through conquests," Dr Mahathir said, contrasting that history to centuries of European colonial violence and plunder. "We have relations with China for almost 2,000 years, but they never conquered us." - Straits Times
Did people forget that China has colonised Tibet for over half a century?
Although the point is mostly true historically. I always wondered why China never invaded it's eastern neighbours. My assumption is that China was mostly interested in expanding and securing its western front and didn't want a two sided war. What do you think?
Actually Tibet was under China's rule off and on throughout history. It was under China's rule during the Yuan (Mongolians that ruled China then, (1271–1368)), Ming (1368–1644, though more tributary) and Qing dynasties (direct rule, 1644–1912). But when the Qing dynasty fell and the warlord era began, China didn't exert their authority over it. Then China reasserted control in the 1950s. I don't know if I can say it was colonised the same way as Malaysia was colonised by the British via invading ships. It's more like them reasserting their rule. Whether it's right or wrong that they did what they did in the 1950s - to me, it's really none of my business to point fingers at them because it's their own internal affairs. China was a mess after the Qing dynasty fell. A lot of their current problems with territories and borders seem to come from that period. /shrug
About why China never invaded other countries - it's really simple. It's bad for business, and expensive to maintain an empire. China got enough problems on its own with its borders and maintaining control of it! (Re Tibet etc)
Uh, I think you may have to read a history book for better understanding on why countries do it/don't do it. The Art of War by Sun Tzu basically encapsulates the Chinese mindset when it comes to war - that the best way to manage war is not to even start it.
China just has a different culture, mindset, and geographical limitations. Countries in the West do not have as many resources, are naval nations, and who knows why they like conquering and colonizing so much. Methinks its partly culture, and partly driven by the need for power.
I have read the art of war (a long time ago at least) but I still am not convinced. China has the most brutal wars in human history so it doesn't seem like the Chinese were particularly good at managing conflict.
Well written with a comedic touch! That's just what we need in this day and age. We all know the famous George Bernard Shaw quote: “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.”
Haha, I'm glad I could make you laugh. Yeah, the whole tariff thing is so ridiculous at this point that even if write anything seriously about it, it'll still sound hilarious.
The part that specifically made me laugh out loud was this:
"So, when O'Reilly said what he said, I immediately thought about what to boycott, and realised that I don't have many things to boycott except for my favourite brand of chips, Lays, which, to be honest, I really shouldn't consume too much of."
And I can't overstate how much I appreciate it. Hard to find anything amusing these days, with all that's going on in the world.
My first thought when I read your headline was “Bill O’Reilly is still alive?” I wish I could convey how irrelevant, uninformed, and embarrassing anything this man (or most US pundits) say is, but y’all already know.
We have a saying in this part of the world - he's still alive cos even hell doesn't want him. ;D Ok, that was mean lol
Yes, we know haha. We rarely take blowhards like him seriously, but I have to say he chose a very sensitive insult to the Malays! We would usually just shrug and laugh it off, but this one hits a sore spot.
Bill O’Reilly is a has-been. I don’t like people like him. Obviously he knows even less about Malaysia than he knows about China. I imagine Xi Jinping is probably more interested in investing in Malaysia at the moment than he is finding a market for Chinese goods. I think some Chinese manufacturers will probably want to increase their presence there, because Vietnam may start to get saturated and they won’t want to rely on Vietnam too much. I’m not sure how people in Malaysia would feel about Chinese investment.
We've had Chinese investment for ages in Malaysia. Decades. So, yes, we rather like them. The only thing we resent the Chinese for is taking so much durian for us. ;D
> "China does not have a history of creating empires through conquests," Dr Mahathir said, contrasting that history to centuries of European colonial violence and plunder. "We have relations with China for almost 2,000 years, but they never conquered us." - Straits Times
Did people forget that China has colonised Tibet for over half a century?
Although the point is mostly true historically. I always wondered why China never invaded it's eastern neighbours. My assumption is that China was mostly interested in expanding and securing its western front and didn't want a two sided war. What do you think?
Actually Tibet was under China's rule off and on throughout history. It was under China's rule during the Yuan (Mongolians that ruled China then, (1271–1368)), Ming (1368–1644, though more tributary) and Qing dynasties (direct rule, 1644–1912). But when the Qing dynasty fell and the warlord era began, China didn't exert their authority over it. Then China reasserted control in the 1950s. I don't know if I can say it was colonised the same way as Malaysia was colonised by the British via invading ships. It's more like them reasserting their rule. Whether it's right or wrong that they did what they did in the 1950s - to me, it's really none of my business to point fingers at them because it's their own internal affairs. China was a mess after the Qing dynasty fell. A lot of their current problems with territories and borders seem to come from that period. /shrug
About why China never invaded other countries - it's really simple. It's bad for business, and expensive to maintain an empire. China got enough problems on its own with its borders and maintaining control of it! (Re Tibet etc)
> It's bad for business and expensive to maintain an empire
Then why did any empire do it? Also it's not like the merchant class was particularly powerful in pre modern China.
Uh, I think you may have to read a history book for better understanding on why countries do it/don't do it. The Art of War by Sun Tzu basically encapsulates the Chinese mindset when it comes to war - that the best way to manage war is not to even start it.
China just has a different culture, mindset, and geographical limitations. Countries in the West do not have as many resources, are naval nations, and who knows why they like conquering and colonizing so much. Methinks its partly culture, and partly driven by the need for power.
I have read the art of war (a long time ago at least) but I still am not convinced. China has the most brutal wars in human history so it doesn't seem like the Chinese were particularly good at managing conflict.
They are territorial, for sure, and most of their battles are waged on their borders. Colonisers? Their history speaks for itself.
Well written with a comedic touch! That's just what we need in this day and age. We all know the famous George Bernard Shaw quote: “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.”
Haha, I'm glad I could make you laugh. Yeah, the whole tariff thing is so ridiculous at this point that even if write anything seriously about it, it'll still sound hilarious.
The part that specifically made me laugh out loud was this:
"So, when O'Reilly said what he said, I immediately thought about what to boycott, and realised that I don't have many things to boycott except for my favourite brand of chips, Lays, which, to be honest, I really shouldn't consume too much of."
And I can't overstate how much I appreciate it. Hard to find anything amusing these days, with all that's going on in the world.
I live to serve lol. Why pour more hatred to the world, aye? Best to have a laugh over it.
Wonder why O’Reilly cares so much about Xi’s visit to Malaysia and ASEAN-China relations. If we are so insignificant, he has no reason to care! 🤣🤣
IKR? Well, I hope Bill O'Reilly drops more zingers so Malaysians will finally have a solid reason to boycott goods, mostly out of annoyance ;D
My first thought when I read your headline was “Bill O’Reilly is still alive?” I wish I could convey how irrelevant, uninformed, and embarrassing anything this man (or most US pundits) say is, but y’all already know.
We have a saying in this part of the world - he's still alive cos even hell doesn't want him. ;D Ok, that was mean lol
Yes, we know haha. We rarely take blowhards like him seriously, but I have to say he chose a very sensitive insult to the Malays! We would usually just shrug and laugh it off, but this one hits a sore spot.
Bill O’Reilly is a has-been. I don’t like people like him. Obviously he knows even less about Malaysia than he knows about China. I imagine Xi Jinping is probably more interested in investing in Malaysia at the moment than he is finding a market for Chinese goods. I think some Chinese manufacturers will probably want to increase their presence there, because Vietnam may start to get saturated and they won’t want to rely on Vietnam too much. I’m not sure how people in Malaysia would feel about Chinese investment.
We've had Chinese investment for ages in Malaysia. Decades. So, yes, we rather like them. The only thing we resent the Chinese for is taking so much durian for us. ;D
Yes, we need to stop using Us vs. Them.
Definitely. We have so much in common we forget that.