IMHO, STEM careers not sure about now, but before the mid-90's were considered more prestigious in China than medicine and law.
Back then, lawyers never really had a spotlight in Chinese commerce or politics given Chinese Community Party's one-party rule and state-owned enterprise dominated economy; also in civilian realm, Chinese business partnerships are governed by "Guanxi," your reputation and standing within your personal network than the culture of litigation in Western world.
Also, hate to be blunt, medicine is not as much upheld in esteem (relatively) in China due to the perceived less value of human life and socialized medicine at the time: a country of 1.3 billion people roughly the same size of US with a fraction of the GDP, marred by the Great Leap Forward, cultural revolution and until recently one child policy. Chinese hospitals clinic's queues is more like going to the DMV where you bring and keep your own medical chart and queuing up, compare with the Western medicine's obsession for "personal well-being," "resuscitate at all cost".
Individuals are not as considered as the State or the Collective. Now compare the puny individual with fragile bodies and limited agency to the grand gestures of the grand dams that conquer the Yangtze River or big bridges that crisscrosses metropolises.
Children are taught at the early age that the reason for the Chinese "Century of Humiliation" is Qing Dynasty's reluctance to reform and adopt Western technologies; Chinese engineers that built railroads and scientists that built nuclear bombs were hailed as heroes as much as say, civil rights leaders in US social studies curriculum.
There were many reason's for the Century of Humiliation. The Qing dynasty did attempt to reform on a big scale [0], but it was very much restricted in what it could do by western meddling.
I think the major point missed by countries subdued by the west is that one tends to explain failures in terms of individual wrong decisions with catastrophic results.
This misses a much more profound point. Just as many stupid decisions was made in Europe but because Europe was not united an individual stupid decision from somebody at the top never brought the whole continent to a standstill. European disunity was a blessing. Stupid decision could never survive long because every European country was in fierce competition with its neighbors.
Unity has high pay offs while good decisions are made, but as shown in the case with China, one wrong decision at the top and it risks dooming the whole country.
China still suffers the same problem. The future of over 1 billion people depends on one communist party keep making the right decisions. At any time they risk getting the wrong guy at the top and bring all advances they have made thus far to a halt.
The Qing dynasty, even at the best of times, was far more decentralized than the Communists ever were. Coming in at the disintegration of the Ming, the Manchus absorbed huge swatches of Ming defectors, rebels, and newly conquered territory. By and large, they adopted the pre-existing scholar-official system, and by and large the pre-existing scholar-officials, to run these provinces. The provincial governors were not quite Persian satraps, nor the warlords of the Nationalist era, but they had relatively wide latitude. Moreover, there were parallel bureaucracies, with the Chinese civil administrations, and the Eight Banners standing army cum garrison staffed by Manchus, Mongols and other non-Han. Corruption was rife, and to some extent expected - the level of training and education to pass the gate-keeping imperial exams to enter the scholar class took years and could beggar families or entire communities. Taken to the extreme, you see the case of Heshen, a Manchu official who had embezzled the equivalent of a decade and a half of tax revenue for the entire empire.
Regardless of western meddling, the Qing dynasty was subjected to the deadliest and most destructive war of the 19th century, which nearly toppled the government. And it was largely the third parallel bureaucracy that arose around the two or three most successful leaders against the Taiping that led the westernization push. In the organizations of Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang you have the direct precursors of the local warlords who made such a mess of the country for the first fifty years of the 20th century. Already, they operated largely outside the government, building their local fiefdoms.
Interesting! I was always interested in why the Chinese Republican government collapsed so quickly into the warlord era. It seems like the power structures of that era were already in place by the time the emperor was thrown out, and once Yuan Shikai was gone, they just made it official.
Makes me think of the Romans. Supposedly when they conquered territories, they killed the head of state and his closest supporters, but left much of the power structure intact. Then they put their own people up top, to funnel taxes etc to Rome.
The Qing dynasty was an inward-looking feudal monarchy, which is a terrible way to rule 300 million people. It would have fallen apart one way or another, Opium Wars or not.
The Wikipedia page refers to the top-down reorganization, which is the worst way to do reorganization.
> The Qing dynasty did attempt to reform on a big scale [0], but it was very much restricted in what it could do by western meddling.
(I've read multiple histories of the period, but the following is from my memory of them and also I am no expert:)
Remember that by the mid-nineteenth century Chinese government and society had, very broadly, followed the same culture and form since around 250 BC and the Chinese saw themselves as by far the leading nation in the world, to which all others were mere tributaries. Arguably that had been generally true and especially within the region; remember there was very little communication or interaction with Europe due to technological limitations. If you want to see a great example of it, read Emporer Qianlong's famous response to the UK's King George III's offer of trade relations; Qianlong talks down to George as a subordinate begging a favor, says the UK has nothing to offer China, and refers to them as 'barbarians'.[1]
However, the Industrial Revolution came to the West first and left China unable to compete without massive changes. Think of China as an incumbent organization facing massive disruption in its 'industry'. Think how hard it is for a business to change culture and direction; now imagine an entire massive country with an extremely deeply entrenched culture and bureaucracy that was arguably their national identity and effectively their religion: Thousands of years of being run by scholars of Confucius - and consider that abiding by writings from 5th century BC is an exceptionally conservative culture in itself, not used to accomodating change. Maybe imagining how quickly the Catholic Church would abandon Biblical teachings for science is a good equivalent. And like any incumbent, they were loathe to admit they had a problem or need, even when the facts were right in front of their eyes.
In a series of accomodations, they tried to catch up with Europe while compromising their culture as little as possible. I don't remember the details exactly, but it progressed something like this: First they just tried buying military weapons, but lacked the ecosystem necessary to understand them, apply them, use them, etc. Then they tried allowing local manufacture of them, then educating some Chinese in the science and tech (but without the academic culture of inquiry, etc.), etc. This step-by-step process took place over decades, as they resisted adopting the ecosystem of culture, intellectual ideas, science, etc. (I won't even try to define it more precisely than that) that is needed to adopt the Industrial Revolution. The Qing dynasty eventually was overthrown in 1911; there were 38 years of weak governments and civil war until the Communists won in 1949.
> The Qing dynasty did attempt to reform on a big scale [0], but it was very much restricted in what it could do by western meddling
From what I understand, while the West treated China very poorly, imposing economic and political oppression on them (look up the Unequal Treaties, for example), the Chinese themselves had great trouble adopting, as described above.
I'll add that, in my amatuer analysis, the current Chinese government continues the same program of trying to gain the West's advantages by accomodating the minimal possible amount of change. IMHO, they behave a lot like the old imperial dynasties: They try to claim the same sphere of influence (including the South China Sea, East China Sea), try to compel neighbors into the same attitude of submission to their power, dynstic decline due to corruption (and other issues) is one of the fundementals of Chinese imperial history, etc. And they still are trying obtain the benefits of western wealth and tech, but now without accomodating the rule of law and democracy.
-----
[1] You can easily find it online. If you read it though, keep in mind that much can be lost in linguistic and especially cultural translation. We have no grasp of the culture of a 19th century Chinese Emporer!
That is a great comment, and I will try to give my thoughts on it.
You're analysis of the present Chinese government as continuing the imperialistic policies of the Qing make a lot of sense, but I also tend to see these policies as kind of inevitable. All major powers will behave along similar lines, and mainly for similar reasons (e.g. see the Monroe Doctrine of the US and how long it took to normalize relations with Cuba). Russia is panicking because its own sphere of influence is being breached by NATO. China is worried about the West (or the South Koreans) gaining control over North Korea, right at their doorstep. So if you think about it, its not evil, its inevitable. Most non-western countries have been exploited in some horrible way in the recent past and that can really help explain why hard it is for them, even now, to trust the West.
As far as Industrial revolution and China: I agree that the Qing was undemocratic(obviously), slow to change etc. Governing a country as big as China has never been an easy task though. Think about it: its 1900, and you have 450 million people [0] in your kingdom, the largest by far, almost twice that of India, and a number never see before in history. Even the roman empire had only(!) 60 million people at its peak, most of whom were slaves.
So its not an easy problem. And many of the "simplest" solutions fall right on their heads. I know people in this forum like to talk about disruption, but that's great for companies; for governments it is a VERY different problem, and needs to be handled differently. Just look at the crisis created by revolutions: Chinese Revolution left the country devastated, Russian Revolution tore apart the country before getting a respite after WW1. Every single time a revolution takes place, a wholesale change of everything happens and nobody is quite sure what is going on.
However, there are ways to change while not throwing out everything: The Meiji reformation in Japan is a great model of how to change an backward oriental country into a modern one, with western-style institutions and economy. And the Chinese Communists, despite all the horrible things they have done, have managed to bring stability and economic growth to a country that was ruled by warlords for much of the early 20th century.
I guess my point is simply that its not easy. Many people fail to see that there are reasons why the Qing were what they were, and that there were many factions even in the corrupt government that did want China to progress. So the ideal way to really reform a country is through diplomacy, and working with existing institutions, and modernizing them, rather than start from scratch.
> All major powers will behave along similar lines, and mainly for similar reasons (e.g. see the Monroe Doctrine of the US and how long it took to normalize relations with Cuba).
I disagree. For example, look at the other powers in Asia: None have militarized or coercive conflicts with anyone[1] - except China, who has such a conflict with most of them. For example, looking at the Western Pacific, why is it that S. Korea, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam, and the U.S. all can get along with each other and resolve their problems with no military involvement at all (10 relationships); yet all of them face military, coercive threats from China? If China wants security, all they need to do is stop threatening everyone and taking territory. Certainly nobody has any intention of attacking China.
Look at the powers in Europe. Other than Russia, is there the slightest threat of military action between them?
The Monroe Doctrine is from 1823, hardly representative of modern U.S. policy. No U.S. neighbor is under threat of attack, other than by meddlesome U.S. investors and DEA agents. Do Canada and Mexico even waste a moment thinking about arming themselves against U.S. invasion?
> Russia is panicking because its own sphere of influence is being breached by NATO.
Russia might not be the best model of behavior. Yes, all nations are concerned about what happens on their borders, but in 2016 the great majority follow the rules-based international order rather than the older, barbaric mechanisms of killing people and stealing their land by force.
> the Chinese Communists, despite all the horrible things they have done, have managed to bring stability and economic growth to a country that was ruled by warlords for much of the early 20th century.
Hmmm ... they may have caused more deaths than any regime in world history, tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution (and ignoring the civil war). If you burn down your house and then build a new one, can you claim credit for building something from nothing?
> the ideal way to really reform a country is through diplomacy, and working with existing institutions, and modernizing them, rather than start from scratch
I agree with this, but I don't think the current Chinese leadership does.
----
[1] With the exception civil war based conflicts in Korea and India/Pakistan.
> I disagree. For example, look at the other powers in Asia: None have militarized or coercive conflicts with anyone[1] - except China, who has such a conflict with most of them.
This is really not true. Bear in mind the Middle-East is considered part of Asia. The Western Pacific consists mostly of countries that were dominated by the US (Japan, SK, Phillipines). Vietnam is an exception.
Europe was torn apart by war not so long ago, let us not forget that. Most European countries went through stages of both economic and territorial expansion on a scale not seen ever before. The US did a similar thing on the North American continent. Remember Manifest Destiny? Mexican-American war and the annexation of California etc. etc.
Everything must be taken in context. China is in the same stage of development as the US and other European countries were before. All countries tend to go through similar stages of development.
Let me say that I don't condone the actions taken by China, what I'm arguing for is that the reasons for them are fundamental different than "Chinese Government is evil". That kind of thinking hinders the process of effective diplomacy between countries.
> Russia might not be the best model of behavior. Yes, all nations are concerned about what happens on their borders, but in 2016 the great majority follow the rules-based international order rather than the older, barbaric mechanisms of killing people and stealing their land by force.
Who is doing that? China is not invading other countries. They are building artificial islands on uninhabited part of the sea. Posturing is part and parcel of international diplomacy. Don't be fooled by what they say but what they are actually willing to do.
Back then, lawyers never really had a spotlight in Chinese commerce or politics given Chinese Community Party's one-party rule and state-owned enterprise dominated economy; also in civilian realm, Chinese business partnerships are governed by "Guanxi," your reputation and standing within your personal network than the culture of litigation in Western world.
Also, hate to be blunt, medicine is not as much upheld in esteem (relatively) in China due to the perceived less value of human life and socialized medicine at the time: a country of 1.3 billion people roughly the same size of US with a fraction of the GDP, marred by the Great Leap Forward, cultural revolution and until recently one child policy. Chinese hospitals clinic's queues is more like going to the DMV where you bring and keep your own medical chart and queuing up, compare with the Western medicine's obsession for "personal well-being," "resuscitate at all cost".
Individuals are not as considered as the State or the Collective. Now compare the puny individual with fragile bodies and limited agency to the grand gestures of the grand dams that conquer the Yangtze River or big bridges that crisscrosses metropolises.
Children are taught at the early age that the reason for the Chinese "Century of Humiliation" is Qing Dynasty's reluctance to reform and adopt Western technologies; Chinese engineers that built railroads and scientists that built nuclear bombs were hailed as heroes as much as say, civil rights leaders in US social studies curriculum.