The Weight of History

A nation's history helps to shape the way external forces impact it.

It is very bold to say that whether or not a nation can be conquered by another is the prey's own fault. However, this can be partly true. Many nations have been threatened and conquered by imperial forces while others have resisted. The same forces can be said to have been exerted on them and yet the product differs entirely from situation to situation. Beeson, the author of this article Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia, states that a nation's history, characteristics, and people impact their future contacts with outside parties tremendously. I believe I can agree with that.

China

"... Response to the European challenge was a consequence of internal degeneration, rather than simple European superiority" (pg. 31). This was the reason Beeson gives for China's submission to European dominance in the 1800s after the fall of the Ming Dynasty. China is historically ethnocentric, divided, and introverted. This made a very good environment for the Europeans to permeate and weaken from within. Yes, it can be said that European forces were very strong. But, China was so characteristically weak that they fell more quickly, than, say, Japan.

It's interesting that Beeson blames Confuscian thought and an air of superiority of the Chinese for their fall to a elite and self-superior power like Europe. Essentially the Chinese refused to give in a little of their customs and greatness in order to be spared total domination but thus subjected themselves more easily to such a fate. I do not think we can seprate China's history and Europe's history from placing blame for China's fall. I believe it was the interaction of the two that produced this result. China's superiority complex and resistance angered the Europeans moreso than any other nation simply because Europe thought itself and its ideas to also be superior. What I mean is, not only was China's weakness a cause of their downfall but also Europe's increased motivation to dominate China even more forcefully. China's weakness made Europe even stronger. Thus, European action played off of Chinese culture to create a shared outcome between the two actors.

Japan

Japan contrasts greatly to China and thus their fate in the imperial era reflects it. Europe did not see that Japan was just as literate as they were and believed Japan to be worthless to them. Also, Japan allowed Europe to trade and exchange ideas with them a little more openly. Thus, Europe attempts to dominate and threaten Japan's security were less because Japan was less susceptible to collapse with an open mind. Also, Europe was not challenged to work harder to secure Japan because this nation was not a elusive as China. Again, Beeson makes the point that a nation's history changes how its future will be controlled.

Not only does this allow Japan to hold its own against European domination. Japan also becomes a center of competition and rivalry with China. The nation, allowing itself to stay afloat by accepting some Western ideals, is free to dominate parts of Asia as well. This sets Japan up to be just like Europe in its quest to take over other lands rather than be taken over themselves. Japan begins to take on the same goals and means as European imperialists within the Asian region. Thus, the way Japan interacted with the rest of Asia then and now is reflected in their past reaction to potential European threats.

This historical resistance by Japan helped give the nation a reputation for asserting Asia's worth in many areas and also for going against Western influence. This helped them to stop external domination but also caused them to be resented by the rest of East Asia. China for trying to take over certain regions and Southeast Asia for exploiting its resources. Then and now, Japan can be noted as having a sense of superiority and higher value than other Asian nations. I think this is definetly the case as much of the world sees how greatly Japan differs from the rest of Asia in all areas of living.

I'm not sure how this article ties into the Olympics article yet. All I can note is that it shows how the Olympics can have a huge diplomatic effect on the region. The region is characterized by instability and poor regional relations. Thus, it makes sense that sports diplomacy could potentially improve their ties moreso than other, more stable regions. The fact that China has been a historically weak area for others to prey on makes it a hotbed for controversy during the Olympics as the nation tries to show the world it will no longer allow this.