Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is History Eurocentric?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is History Eurocentric?
    Posted: 06-Oct-2009 at 14:28
Originally posted by Pachacutec

What is Eurocentric, Sinocentric or Afrocentric is to think Indians couldn't develop theirs civilizations by their own.

They did. There are aspects of their civilization that are unique and advanced. Incas, Mayas, Aztecs had sophisticated calendars and understanding of astronomy that was very advanced for the period. The military tactics of Aztecs were quite sophisticated and they almost managed to beat Spanish in the defense of their capital. If it was not for popular uprising of other tribes against them they would probably win. The small pox epidemics did not help either.

Form of recording of the language that is unique - khipus. Inca and Aztec societies were as or maybe more advanced than Europe at the time of the Conquista.
As we said in this thread there is no proof of any extended contact with outsiders. Even if contacts occurred in some coastal area, their impact would be extremely limited due to the geography of the region.

What is funny about Eurocentric view, is that most of European civilization is based on Asian contribution and Asian societies were more advanced until eighteen century, when Europe emerged from its backwardness. Only exception maybe the Antiquity, but influence from Asia and Africa was strong during that period too.

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 06:59
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Originally posted by Pachacutec

What is Eurocentric, Sinocentric or Afrocentric is to think Indians couldn't develop theirs civilizations by their own.

They did. There are aspects of their civilization that are unique and advanced. Incas, Mayas, Aztecs had sophisticated calendars and understanding of astronomy that was very advanced for the period. The military tactics of Aztecs were quite sophisticated and they almost managed to beat Spanish in the defense of their capital. If it was not for popular uprising of other tribes against them they would probably win. The small pox epidemics did not help either.

Form of recording of the language that is unique - khipus. Inca and Aztec societies were as or maybe more advanced than Europe at the time of the Conquista.
As we said in this thread there is no proof of any extended contact with outsiders. Even if contacts occurred in some coastal area, their impact would be extremely limited due to the geography of the region.

What is funny about Eurocentric view, is that most of European civilization is based on Asian contribution and Asian societies were more advanced until eighteen century, when Europe emerged from its backwardness. Only exception maybe the Antiquity, but influence from Asia and Africa was strong during that period too.

 
Not really so.
It's pretty OT, but still, European societies were not any less advanced than any other societies "until the 18th century".
The societies are definitely not directly based on anything "Asian". Depends what you mean by "Asian" though, but the structure of European societies (before the 18th century) are not in any way similar to any "Asian" societies. Not similar to societies in Arab countries, not similar to society in China, not similar to the society at the time in Anatolia (Except for some specific areas earlier) etc., so no matter what you consider "Asian" it's still bunk.
 
But... eighteen century, lol, maybe you should stick to other subjects than Euro history?
 
Just to give an British example, try to search for Magna Carter.
 
And although Aztec/Mexica societies were large, organised and advanced, they were very different from Euro societies, and a direct comparison of their "advance ness" is impossible.
 
Or maybe you could tell in what way any other society was significantly more advanced (Not that all of Europe was of a uniform advancement, but I assume the most advanced in this case, of course.)
 

I mean ANY other society on the entire globe. The years 1600-1700. Well into the renaissance, almost the age of enlightenment. The age of Newton, Discovery etc.



Edited by Jams - 07-Oct-2009 at 07:00
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 07:33
You must know something about history of Europe I don't. 
Wheel, written language, medicine, legal code, science, public schooling, religious tolerance and architecture are not European inventions. Without contribution of Arabs in early medieval times, Europe's Renaissance would be pretty modest affair and would not even be able to connect to its roots. The civilization is not just a primitive, warmongering society structure. Most of European societies could be characterized by: hungry, cold, and sick. Idea of sewage system was pretty new in eighteen century in Europe. The civilization is not built by society meeting (barely) basic needs of its population. 
Until eighteen centuries China and India led the globe. By 1750 Japan, China, India accounted for 61% of world manufacturing. West (Europe) share is only 18%. In 1860 West accounted for 53%.
As you can see even eighteen century is still not that glorious in Europe, except scientific basis was built for later.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 07-Oct-2009 at 07:44
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 11:36
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

You must know something about history of Europe I don't. 
That is quite possible. I cannot deny the possibility. I don't know what you know, though, so it's impossible to say.
 
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Wheel, written language, medicine, legal code, science, public schooling, religious tolerance and architecture are not European inventions. Without contribution of Arabs in early medieval times, Europe's Renaissance would be pretty modest affair and would not even be able to connect to its roots. The civilization is not just a primitive, warmongering society structure. Most of European societies could be characterized by: hungry, cold, and sick. Idea of sewage system was pretty new in eighteen century in Europe. The civilization is not built by society meeting (barely) basic needs of its population. 
Until eighteen centuries China and India led the globe. By 1750 Japan, China, India accounted for 61% of world manufacturing. West (Europe) share is only 18%. In 1860 West accounted for 53%.
As you can see even eighteen century is still not that glorious in Europe, except scientific basis was built for later.
I don't care about who invented what, that kind of stuff is for supremacist retards to discuss, but, really, I only talk about how advanced European (which is not one nation, or nations in a uniform state of advancement) societies were, not who came up with the ideas.
 
But it is still not true that Europe was any less advanced at the time you suggest, up until the eighteenth century. That is very false. It does depend on what you mean by advanced society, though - when is a society advanced?
 
How much had Chinese society evolved at the time, compared to their state several hundred years before (when China certainly was far more advanced in every imaginable way)?
 
I’m pretty sure China around 900 did produce far more than Liechtenstein does today – does it mean that China was more advanced? Or perhaps it means that China have had a very long prehistory, and that China is BIG. Same with India. Long time to assemble the production lines, so to speak.
 
The reason there was an advanced society in Europe at that particular time, was truly due to certain new approaches to the way society is organised, and new discoveries (be they based on previous discoveries by others, it doesn't matter in this context) and trade.
 
In the sixteenth+seventeeth century certain European countries established colonies in far away parts of the world, most notably in the Americas, and Russia started to colonise their part of the world. A big continuous expansion, especially for the time, considering the vast obstacles they had to overcome to actually do it at the scale they did, something that required seriously well organised societies.
Remember, prior to all this, Europe had the plague, and it took quite some time for Europe to recover, and even then, the population of the entire Europe wasn't really all that big.
 
The fact is, the European societies changed, they advanced. They became something new over time, and therefore, due to many circumstances, such as trade (very important) and shift in power (including the religious systems etc etc) colonialism, military developments and whatnot, became more advanced than they were before.
 
So, European societies were not any less advanced. Maybe they hadn't invented sewage systems, but that doesn't mean that they weren't as advanced as anyone else. The re-emergence of Greek philosophy and ideas, huge advances in art, such as perspective, technology, maths, a LOT of other advances, way to much to mention here.
 
I'm not really talking about how advanced the cities were from a technical perspective, but about society as a whole. But! you can go to any Euro city today and see architecture from  16-1700, there's still quite a lot, and it's pretty advanced (sewage systems or not). In fact, in many ways much of it is very similar to architecture around 1800. It's not primitive by any means.
 
Ps. some Euro cities did have sewage systems, btw. And it's not like the actual world production 350 years ago is known with any certainty.
 
 
 


Edited by Jams - 07-Oct-2009 at 11:51
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:11
I think my image of advanced society is not to have pigs wallow in a raw sewage in middle of its capital and people picking drinking water downstream from raw sewage being dumped into the river. 
The colonization chapter  you talk about was nothing more than institutionalized pillage and often genocide, on a planetary scale. And British had a great talent for this. French were doing that too on smaller scale. 
This was linked to the fact that Europe was pretty poor until nineteen century. I gave you manufacturing numbers which are good indicator of the level of development of society. 
The most prized part of European political development is the separation of church and state. This ended continuous religious mayhem. Ironic is that it can be traced to Avarroes. Another civilized behavior is  tolerance of diversity. Did you ever thought about the fact that so many diverse, old Christian denominations survived in the Ottoman Empire but not in Europe?
Who invented what is not part of supremacist ideology, actually contradicts any supremacists. It is supremacist to usurp the prominent place by Europeans in the History and  denying contributions of other societies to the world culture and civilization. 
I was brought up on the standard historical  European propaganda and was amazed when I started discovering there was little factual basis for it. 
Yes, Europe accomplished a lot since eighteen century, considering how low they started, but also achieved the rank of  the most bloody continent in the history of mankind. To this day, it is dealing with ghosts from its past.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 07-Oct-2009 at 12:41
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:36
In other words, you don't really know much, do you? I guess my words were completely wasted.
Maybe you have great knowledge, but not about Europe, that's for sure. I could post a pic of a Chinese village where pigs roam the streets today, but it means jack shit, but if you want to use individual anecdotal examples like that, Heck, I could post pictures of a similar scenario as described below from a big city in India today. Wouldn't make any difference
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

I think my image of advanced society is not to have pigs wallow in a raw sewage in middle of its capital and people picking drinking water downstream from raw sewage being dumped into the river. 
 
And it is exactly supremacist, whatever kind they represent, that drags irrelvant stuff like who invented what into a debate. Who cares? It has nothing to do with anything.
 
The most prized part of European political development is the separation of church and state.
And?


Edited by Jams - 07-Oct-2009 at 12:44
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:47
I repeat: I don't care about who came up with what, it is irrelevant.
Are you too stupid to figure that out? I've already written it twice.


Edited by Jams - 07-Oct-2009 at 12:48
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:49
 
The most prized part of European political development is the separation of church and state.
And?

Read the next sentence and look-up Averroes.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 13:02
Originally posted by Jams

I repeat: I don't care about who came up with what, it is irrelevant.
Are you too stupid to figure that out? I've already written it twice.

I am speaking as a moderator now. We can debate lots of ideas and it gets heated sometimes but we try not to insult each other personally. Calling me stupid proves that you don't have arguments or knowledge to refute my ideas. What you wrote is not very convincing and would not be more convincing even if you wrote it three times. This is warning for the use of word "stupid". 


Edited by cavalry4ever - 07-Oct-2009 at 13:04
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 13:30
Yeah, I asked if you were. It doesn't prove anything of the sort, except hat I am frustrated a bit that you write the same irrelevant thing again (imo).
 
You didn't adress the issue anyway. So tell me, what is relevant about him? WHY do you bring the origin of this and that into it? Does it make the various European societies any more or less advanced anno 1650 that some Arabic person came up with a lot of ideas that they use, several hundred years previous to the age in question?
I see no real ideas to refute, except your claim that European societies (which is not a uniform entity) was especially primitive untill 1700, and that Asian societies were more advanced until that particular time (even though there's hardly any uniform level of advancement throughout Asia either, but you didn't specify exactly which Asian societies you mean, making any kind of comparison impossible).
 
You write some emotionally charged statements about Europe, and nothing else. "How low they started" "Most bloody continent" "Europe was pretty poor" (which is very much untrue - that depends on where in Europe, Europe is not one country) and a lot of irrelvant (again) statements that has no influence on the status of Europe as advanced or primitive.
And we're seriously OT.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 07:16
When studying History, one continent stands out: Europe
Its achievements are often exaggerated and its misdeeds whitewashed.
What do you think?
How Europe looks from non-European perspective?


Edited by cavalry4ever - 08-Oct-2009 at 07:44
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 03:12
Yes. İndia-Europan Theory is totally eurocentric.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 06:36
Originally posted by İskit

Yes. İndia-Europan Theory is totally eurocentric.

Yes is not good enough. Why do you think it is?
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 08:22

Rule #1:   History is written by the winners.

Rule #2:  Nobody rules forever.

You win some, you lose some.  I'm pretty sure that during Europe's "Dark Ages", history was anything but Eurocentric.  Western economists, historians, and sociologists have been saying for decades that this is now the "Asian Century".  

Personally, I think it is the Chinese MILLENIUM.  

Dear friends, they simply have the numbers advantage.  Dead

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 10:54
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Originally posted by İskit

Yes. İndia-Europan Theory is totally eurocentric.

Yes is not good enough. Why do you think it is?


İ will give you an answer conversation writed by me.

S: Supporter of İndio Europan theory
M: Me

M: Why yuo indio- europize every people in the ancient world.
S: WE dont do they speak indio europan language.
M: But your starting hypotesis anatolia or kurgan it starts them Bc. 5000 or 4000. Yuo got any linguistic source?
S: they speak indio europan language
M: At these hypotesis you made horse nomads, farmers, or hunter gatherers you make all of them İndio-euroapan; is it logic.
S:  they speak indio europan language
M: Your hypotesis says Europa, caucasia, north of black sea, anatolia, middle asia, altai region, syberia all of there populated by indio-europans from bc. 6000 to end of first age. there are huge differces at this regions, cultural, religional, economic, at every part of thier life. How yuo unite them İndio europanic.
S: they speak indio europan language
M: First writings found in the world, sumerian. But it isnt indio europan. How you examine this.
S: İt must be indio europan. More serius reseach will show it.
M: But most of research show its very similar to turkish.
S: No.  No Turks at anatolia, midlle asia , todays east and west turkestan, syberia no turks here to the huns. Ony iranians here. Ony iranians. İ-ra-ni-ans. ONLY İRANİANS. NO TURKS. Only hint europans, iranians. And Turks barbarian. They cant have civizilation like sümerians have. (This bold sentences said by most of indio-europan historians)
M: Turks and mongolians are horse nomad too. How yuo prison them to todays mongolia only. Why they dont go euroasian steppes?
S: Onlyyyyyy İraniiiiiiaannnn Noooo Turk or mongol. İranians speak indio europan. We indio europans at eveywhere. We create civizilation.
M: At 1000 Bc a viking from norseland,  a horse nomad from scytia, a people from india, how yuo unite them same. Yuo said laguage. When they came togather they dont understand each others language. Their culture, religion etc diffrent.
S: They are indio europan. Europans eveywhere.
M you call all white peoples indio-europan. Why?. İts totally ridiciolus and racial.
S: We are aryaaaannnnnn!!! We made civizilation.
M: but your theory isnt eurocentric. Right?
S: yes we hate eurocentrisim. but love indio europans. Turks are barbarian.


Off topic: How ı put picture to my signature?



Edited by İskit - 09-Oct-2009 at 10:56
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 10:59
Originally posted by TranHungDao

Rule #1:   History is written by the winners.

Rule #2:  Nobody rules forever.

You win some, you lose some.  I'm pretty sure that during Europe's "Dark Ages", history was anything but Eurocentric.  Western economists, historians, and sociologists have been saying for decades that this is now the "Asian Century".  

Personally, I think it is the Chinese MILLENIUM.  

Dear friends, they simply have the numbers advantage.  Dead


Chinese Millennium. Are you being overly optimistic?
China is a very multiethnic society. Most of these ethnic group dislike each other. Even Han Chinese are not an uniform group. It is like a pressure cooker with lid being played by China Communist Party. What will happen when that party looses its grip on power?

Genghis Khan proved the numbers are not enough.



Edited by cavalry4ever - 09-Oct-2009 at 11:02
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 18:54
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Chinese Millennium. Are you being overly optimistic?
I think you meant "severely pessimistic".  There were 10+ invastions of Vietnam in the last thousand years.  The last one in 1979.
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

China is a very multiethnic society. Most of these ethnic group dislike each other. Even Han Chinese are not an uniform group.
IIRC, the Han make up more than 90% of 1.4 Billion of mainland China.
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

It is like a pressure cooker with lid being played by China Communist Party. What will happen when that party looses its grip on power?
A guy can dream can't he? Embarrassed
Originally posted by cavalry4ever


Genghis Khan proved the numbers are not enough.

Ghengish Khan is dead.  China is alive.   The (Mongol) Yuan dyanasty was a CHINESE dynasty.

P.S.  Take Japan's productivity and mulitply it by 11.  Then 12, then 13...  China's population is exploding despite the one child policy.

Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 20:22
What makes that reasoning wrong is that Han are not homogeneous and some of branches have very little in common wit each other. There is rural and urban split. On other hand US and European Union have about 800 million people together and probably more in common than diverse groups in China. Add few countries outside of EU and you get parity. This is important not because of military might, but size of internal markets. There won't be Chinese millennium, what we will have is a multipolar world if China does not fall apart. In nineties we had hysteria about Japanese century and Japan world domination. It was just hysteria on a planetary scale.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 21:49

The Japanese don't have the numbers.  Anyone who spoke of a "Japanese Century", and it's the first time I've heard of the term, is pretty naive.  The Chinese on the other hand do have the numbers for world domination.  China's rural peasant populaton is about 800 to 900 MILLION.  They have human resources (read:  Confucian productivity, vis-a-vis Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan) that are simply bottomless.

Before Deng's modernization took hold, China, like Vietnam and N. Korea was merely held back by historical and political conditions.  No more.  The die is caste.  Look at the economic forecasts for S. Korea.  They are on course to surpass Japan percapita-wise--BIG TIME, and just as I would expect.  Historically, Japan was always an irrelevant country in Asia, exerting little to no influence outside its island borders.  Japan only became important when it began to industrialize 150 years ago.

China can fall apart vis-a-vis the Soviet Union only if it goes democratic.  That won't happen for decades.  But even a democratic China will probably still hold.  Beijing is very aggressively pursuing a policy of kinder and gentler genocide, i.e. intermarriage.  They litterally give generous incentives for non-Hans to marry Hans, particularly in areas prone to unrest, i.e. the caucasian muslims of western China, Tibet, etc.

Most Han Chinese are quite nationalistic and sentimental for the mainland, even the ones in Taiwan.  Do you think Americans would allow California or Texas to simply break away?  

The minorities of China who want to break away would be the Inner Mongolians, Manchus, muslim Hui (caucasian and asian), Tibetans, Hmong, Zhuang, etc., are collectively way too small in number.  I've never come across a single Cantonese nor Fujianese, online much less otherwise, who wanted to break away. 

But we're getting way off topic.  Ermm

 

Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 06:30
There  was no country in world that became successful, in long term, under leadership of communist party. All these countries started  through fast modernization and then hit the wall. One party system is not politically mature to sustain country over the long haul. If I was looking at country that has a potential, it is India. Their political system is more mature and its development is accelerating. A democratic state has a slow start that once it starts going, it will reach much further. S. Korea development just proves my point. In a democratic society, with full checks and balances, development accelerates and can take advantage of human potential such society has to offer.
Some stats:
China
Population: 1,338,612,968

India
1,166,079,217
EU
491,582,852
US
307,212,123
US/EU total:
798,794,975
I am using figures from CIA web page (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook). One can skip probably last 3 digits. There is close parity between all these regions, if one considers the whole of Europe.
It will be hard to make consumer market out of Chinese rural population. In the case of Europe/US, it has mostly urban population.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to have multipolar world with checks and balances and more major players. We see what happens when a single country dominates world economy. China role as global leader may never come, unless they can convert their system into more democratic one.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 10-Oct-2009 at 06:59
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.