In the 15th century, Admiral Zheng led a big fleet (about 30,000) sailing to many countries, as far as to Africa. They only traded with those countries, did not colonize any single one. Given how western countries have treated China in the past 180 years, how could you expect Chinese to trust them?
Indeed! Most "outsiders" are unlikely to really understand a Confucian society. In most of these debates or discussions, "outsiders" are likely to impose those perceptions based on their own societal scenario on China or the Chinese people. Well, in a manner, maybe it is better that such scenario to continue as they are unlikely to really understand a Confucian society.
@@pahatpahat9566 To be fair, few can argue better for China than David Kang. You should see how he demolished that John guy in ua-cam.com/video/wafCm3fmF7s/v-deo.html
@@donkruuz3903 Mearsheimer opening statement basically paints the US as an evil empire intent on maintaining its hegemony with reckless militarism. Not a good look. He also points out that the US has a history of putting down potential peer competitors (Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, and then Nazi Germany. That ignores the fact that other countries (particularly the USSR) did the heavy lifting for defeating Nazi Germany. It also ignores the fact that the US' economic position during the entirety of the 20th century was immensely stronger than it currently is: a rising and economically dominant USA was indeed capable of meeting those past challenges, but the current debt- and deficit-ridden USA is no longer in such an advantageous position. Kang did miss the opportunity to properly answer Mearsheimer's question though: "Why should we even have troops in the region?". The answer to that is simple: under the Mao regime those troops were very much necessary. However, post-Mao China is a completely different country. There is no longer the risk of a China led by an unpredictable leader threatening the territorial integrity of neighbouring countries. The regional dynamic has changed, but the US has failed to take that into account... or more accurately, the US leadership doesn't want to let go of the justification for funneling more money into the MIC and the resulting kickbacks they get as a result.
@sunny sunnyday This Swaine bloke is an unmitigated neocon and cold war avid fanboy. Don't know why he's invited. The other three speakers are the open minded unlike this biased and prejudiced so-called 'think tanker'!
The South China Sea is the passage for China to import oil. China has to secure the route for its own national survival apart from territorial claims from centuries ago.
China remember June 1941, how US embargo Japan from oil, materials from this same sea channel. China does not want to be place same on it's trade route by USA. How many don't know why Japan attack USA Dec 7, 1941 and invasion of Indo-China (oil) it was because USA sign embargo in June 1941 of Japan resources.
Wow, a debate about China, with not a single input from a Chinese. Did they even try to find one. You tell me, they could not have one "Chinese" to join them. Closes was a No. Korean translate whom since birth, had not step back, oh my. Wonder would a college in China hold same, debating America past, present and future intend... No, waste of time...
In the 15th century, Admiral Zheng led a big fleet (about 30,000) sailing to many countries, as far as to Africa. They only traded with those countries, did not colonize any single one. Given how western countries have treated China in the past 180 years, how could you expect Chinese to trust them?
How can a debate of China not involving Chinese scholar?
Indeed! Most "outsiders" are unlikely to really understand a Confucian society. In most of these debates or discussions, "outsiders" are likely to impose those perceptions based on their own societal scenario on China or the Chinese people. Well, in a manner, maybe it is better that such scenario to continue as they are unlikely to really understand a Confucian society.
@@pahatpahat9566 To be fair, few can argue better for China than David Kang. You should see how he demolished that John guy in
ua-cam.com/video/wafCm3fmF7s/v-deo.html
@@donkruuz3903 Mearsheimer opening statement basically paints the US as an evil empire intent on maintaining its hegemony with reckless militarism. Not a good look.
He also points out that the US has a history of putting down potential peer competitors (Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, and then Nazi Germany. That ignores the fact that other countries (particularly the USSR) did the heavy lifting for defeating Nazi Germany. It also ignores the fact that the US' economic position during the entirety of the 20th century was immensely stronger than it currently is: a rising and economically dominant USA was indeed capable of meeting those past challenges, but the current debt- and deficit-ridden USA is no longer in such an advantageous position.
Kang did miss the opportunity to properly answer Mearsheimer's question though: "Why should we even have troops in the region?". The answer to that is simple: under the Mao regime those troops were very much necessary. However, post-Mao China is a completely different country. There is no longer the risk of a China led by an unpredictable leader threatening the territorial integrity of neighbouring countries. The regional dynamic has changed, but the US has failed to take that into account... or more accurately, the US leadership doesn't want to let go of the justification for funneling more money into the MIC and the resulting kickbacks they get as a result.
Pertinent point and well taken.
@sunny sunnyday This Swaine bloke is an unmitigated neocon and cold war avid fanboy. Don't know why he's invited. The other three speakers are the open minded unlike this biased and prejudiced so-called 'think tanker'!
other than David Kang, the other five are just waste of time, clueless and ignorant, surprised prof Kang is so reserved and polite
Choose China you have Peace and friendly trade exchanges with more of your countries' revenues collected and many infrastructures modernised.
love to see more Prof Kang's videos
Interesting discussion about China without a Chinese participant from a Chinese perspective.
The South China Sea is the passage for China to import oil. China has to secure the route for its own national survival apart from territorial claims from centuries ago.
China remember June 1941, how US embargo Japan from oil, materials from this same sea channel. China does not want to be place same on it's trade route by USA. How many don't know why Japan attack USA Dec 7, 1941 and invasion of Indo-China (oil) it was because USA sign embargo in June 1941 of Japan resources.
Every government absolutely should have historians in its midst when formulating foreign policies. Thank you all!
Can't stand these western "China experts" besides Kang
History got lost in contemporary geopolitics
Peace, 💓🇨🇳❤️❤️🎶🇲🇾
Wow, a debate about China, with not a single input from a Chinese. Did they even try to find one. You tell me, they could not have one "Chinese" to join them. Closes was a No. Korean translate whom since birth, had not step back, oh my. Wonder would a college in China hold same, debating America past, present and future intend... No, waste of time...
Schools in China talk about US all the time.. the real question is would anyone be all sensitive and butthurt about it. The answer is no.
I’d my comments get lost?
Or got deleted / censored? Try reposting.
you could have been "censored" ... wow, not even chinese.
You Zre Not All Of Those it Is What You World To Hunt And Destroy . World Has Grow up As It Was .
You Are UA-camrs , When I Listen You You Get 0.5 Not Other You Are
Take 0.5 UA-cams
You have Gotten Alot Of benefits . UA-cams