Industrial Revolution why Uk and not China?

yes but this thread is about China and England so I assumed we were keeping that restriction on.

As for the Tokugawa system, its not universally regarded as a goodf thing.  Japanese historians still argue endlessly on the Tokugawa systems merits and flaws.

I persoanlly think it was both good and bad, but its major flaw was intentionally cutting off trade and thus freezing the feudal structure in like a time warp for 200 years.  Had Japan stayed open there may have been no need for rapid industrialization or humiliation with foreign powers.

And I wasnt specifically thinking of Ching hos expidition as much as the choas after the death of Zhu Di and the people that came to power after that.

Say I were to cede that point, it still is problematic because Japanese Confucianism isnt particularly Confucian.  On the surface they appear so but in practice they are always influenced by either Buddhism or that quaint folk religion of SHinto, not to mention even some of the Christian influences that worked in there.

And even then it got them nowhere, just like in all the rest of the world it was a few great men and some cold steel that got them anywhere.

But neither is Chinese Confucian "pure Confucianism."  Neo-Confucianism is influenced by Taoism and Buddhism.  That is not to say, however, that Confucianism isn't a key feature in all version of Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism.  Japanese Neo-Confucianism is absolutely not "surface level" alone.  See http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/TOKJAPAN/NEO.HTM[/quote]

Irrelevant.

Two things.

First of all, I'd definitely blame xenophobia.  Other than that I won't blame the victim.  It certainly doesn't make any sense to blame "Chinese culture," as it is not so monolithically subsumed under one particular attitude towards foreigners.  Racism is arguably irrelevant (the concept of race was a foreign import that didn't seem to have taken root in Chinese culture at the time.)

Secondly, the discussion I started about Confucianism is due to only one thing: your comment that Confucius was most blameworthy for holding back cultural progress (I forgot your exact words.)  Thus our little discussion has absolutely nothing about who to blame for the fall of Ching -- it's a tangent discussion, as I have noted.