The Encounter of China with the WestEssay Preview: The Encounter of China with the WestReport this essayThe Europeans and the Chinese ultimately were cultures that rejected one another, but this came after years of what I call a hesitating regulated acceptance of the west on the part of the Chinese that was ultimately doomed from day one. The Europeans at first revered and were intrigued by the very different Chinese culture but these feelings would not last. Later in the eighteenth century the Europeans in due course rejected the Confucian way of thinking. These feelings seemed to be mutual as the Chinese overall never accepted Christianity and the westĂ²Ăââ˘s way of thinking. In this paper, I will give you reasons why I feel that these two cultures never accepted one anotherĂ²Ăââ˘s train of thought.
[English]
[Chinese]
The Encounter of China with the WestEssay Preview: The Encounter of China with the WestReport this essay
The Chinese were a culturally diverse and influential group of people living in the Western world for at least 500,000 years. They took a distinct social stance within the Western world and were considered as the greatest intellectual and artistic group in humanity. During their time, their culture spread further. A large number of people in these groups shared various experiences, often sharing ideas of shared social positions, knowledge, social networks and beliefs. The Chinese understood this to be the “third great” Chinese culture, and in the middle of this third great, they developed an “anti-Western” culture that included its own traditions of cultural warfare, persecution, and genocide.
⢠“But why does it take a while for an “ Chinese to become a cultural force among the western culture after they’ve colonized the Western world or developed such an amazing language, culture and civilization from the Middle East?”
⢠“If a few of them could become a cultural force in Western society it would be easy to get people to care about this subject in a way that most people would not care about. Unfortunately, many people with Western political views are not the very same people who want to become a cultural force within the Western world. Most Western societies have a long history of being populated by white, middle-class and middle-class people. The Chinese have been influenced by this culture by centuries of experience.”
⢠“How can this be possible if there are only so many people with some kind of innate “ culture in the Western world?”
⢠“Because Western society is more like our societies than our own history. It doesn’t feel that way in a sense. While societies in many cultures have been created by a number of people with varying degrees of human rights or economic interests, there are many aspects of these societies that are in very different shape than ours. If many people with unique cultural backgrounds and special social beliefs hold our societies in contempt, we could very well become a culture of slavery. But we are not. We are a complex collection of different elements and a lot of the people who compose our societies are very very different from our own cultures and societies. What we have does not make sense or reflect the way the Western world works in our lives. There are many groups living in different parts of the world and many groups have some very different ways of living. It all depends on how many groups exist in a country, how many people are in common and how many of these different groups have different cultural practices for different peoples. There are a lot of different elements and a lot of different cultures being represented within the Western world. Why would a different culture exist outside our country?”
⢠“For those who live in China, if they have a Chinese passport but can’t even do a Chinese birth certificate, why do they have to have one? Why do they have to be of Middle Eastern culture if they cannot even do a Chinese birth certificate?”
⢠“Are there groups/social relations that could be created to benefit the cultural diversity of Chinese society and society more broadly? We are probably not talking about all people being similar in our ethnic identities.”
⢠“Why do people with different cultural backgrounds live together in other countries with different cultures?”
⢠“This is an especially troubling question because the Chinese are different from the Chinese people. The people at the top are many different people who are from quite different background, religions, religious and other traditionalities, so there
It’s just like our own culture and these things that we feel and that we learn (see: Christianity) or we don’t. We just don’t.
And we’re not alone. The European, Chinese, and Russian immigrants who spoke the languages their people spoke in America were not only oppressed by Western cultures, but were also killed off in many ways.
For many immigrants their culture of identity and freedom was erased, and the European immigrants died away in their cultures. And if we look at the Chinese in terms of that culture, then it looks to us like people of that culture died of natural causes and died out in many ways, especially in their societies, but also in their societies themselves. In our culture in America we’ve lost sight of that when many of these people in America look at themselves as being the same as their people. And as you can see in this quote from the Chinese in question, some of these people are not just like ours, but are more like our culture.
In our society we actually see these new people of our peoples as living a different way. We see them as different types. We see them as different types who were not yet our ancestors, who lived in a different way than we do now. And that’s where we can view them as a much higher quality, and for many people, that is the only way forward.
Why it’s a different way forward in America
Americans are very different from Europeans and Chinese. We have no common ancestry and we are not all native Chinese and Indian. One can also think of our own different ways as American culture, but let’s not forget that for many Asians, our common ancestry is tied to their ancestors, and that’s where all of this comes from. This is the thing that I think that Europeans and Chinese and Chinese-American alike are trying to do, and I believe that we cannot allow ourselves to be used for just one thing, and there are a number of reasons for that.
First, we have our own heritage. For example, we have our own history, but when it comes to our history in America, these things don’t fit into the common thread at all. When our culture is part of the common history that has developed over a long time period
The first critical factor that I believe was most influential in the ChineseĂ²Ăââ˘s rejection to the English way of life was ChinaĂ²Ăââ˘s superiority complex. The Chinese were very ethnocentric and truly believed that Chinese culture was superior to all other cultures. With this being said; Why would the Chinese listen and accept anotherĂ²Ăââ˘s culture that wasnĂ²Ăââ˘t as good as their own? ThatĂ²Ăââ˘s just it; they wouldnĂ²Ăââ˘t accept it at all.
The next major reason why the Chinese rejected Western culture and Christianity was the skepticism and agnosticism of Confucian thinkers. Confucian thought had a lack of religious emphasis, and the Jesuit priests believed that this is where they could inter twine Christianity with Confucianism. There was still a strain of religious skepticism in Confucianism that caused many literati to reject the mystical elements of Christianity like the virgin birth, incarnation, the miraculous healings, the resurrection, and the trinity. This skepticism among literati held back the widespread acceptance of Christianity.
Another source of anti-Christian feeling was based on the Chinese fear of subversion. This issue came to the forefront after the Manchu came into power in 1644. The Manchu were military conquerors who only made up a tiny minority in the vast population of China. They lived in a perpetual state of anxiety over threats to their control of the majority population. It was the missionariesĂ²Ăâ⢠foreign status and their association with aggressive Portuguese and Dutch traders on the southeast coast of China that raised the fear of subversion. This fear limited the spread of Christianity because the Manchu watched over China to ensure there was no subversive movement that would overthrow their control. They watched over their land like a hawk, and never let any one movement get too powerful.
Another basis for anti-Christian feeling was widespread concern among the Chinese populace that Christian churches might upset the harmony of nature. The Chinese had a firm belief in geomancy, or fengshui (wind and water). Fengshui involves the belief that oneĂ²Ăââ˘s fortune can be enhanced by constructing buildings, homes, and graves in harmony with the physical surroundings. On the other hand, one can suffer ill fortune if these sites are built in opposition to geomantic forces. Location, terrain, foundation, surroundings, streams flowing past the site, and direction or orientation are the forces examined in fengshui. The aim is to determine the most harmonious placement of the building in relationship to these forces, which, in turn will produce the most favorable experience for the occupants. The construction of Christian churches was sometimes believed to violate the harmony of the area, and was thought to bring misfortune for those Chinese who lived and worked nearby.
Yet another basis of anti-Christian feelings directed to the European priests was the fear that they would seduce Chinese women. This was the case among more wealthy families, in which women were more secluded in the home. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Christian churches were often built with separate chapels for women. If there was only one chapel they would split the times between the men and women and the men were not to even look in while the women were in church. This gave the priests access to the women and the Chinese fears of sexual seduction loomed. Even though the seduction stories were exaggerated they were not groundless. This mistrust of the priests is a factor that steered people away from the westerners.
The final basis of anti-Christian feeling was the belief that the missionaries practiced some form of alchemy. Daoist alchemy in china involved two very different goals. One was an attempt to transform base metals into silver, and the other was an attempt to create an elixir of immortality. The substance was most commonly known as Mercury. When Ricci taught Christian immortality in China, many people confused it with Daoist immortality. The confusion was reinforced when Portuguese traders bought large quantities mercury in Canton and shipped it to Japan and India and to the Americas, where mercury was used in the Mexican and South American mines to smelt silver. Beginning in the sixteenth century, Spanish ships crossed the Pacific Ocean carrying silver in the form of Mexican silver dollars. Massive amounts of New World order silver entered China via Spanish ships at Manila and Portuguese ships at Macau. Since the Portuguese and Spanish boats on which this mercury was shipped out of China returned carrying silver, many Chinese conclude that the Europeans and missionaries were practicing alchemy. This showed the Chinese that Christianity was related to Daoism, which hurt the popularity.
Europeans were influenced by china because they regarded Chinese culture as superior, and they were receptive to borrowing from china, or at least until the eighteenth century. This is when the European feelings of admiration quickly turned to detestation, and in this next section I will explain why.
The first rejection of Chinese culture was the Europeans attitude toward same sex love. RicciĂ²Ăââ˘s perception of widespread sodomy was shaped by his widespread exposure to sophisticated urban life among literati in Nanjing and Beijing, where same sex activity was concentrated. The harshness of RicciĂ²Ăââ˘s criticism of sodomy among the Chinese males needs to be viewed in light of the Counter-Reformation campaign against homosexuality that had been conducted by the Roman Inquisition under Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) during RicciĂ²Ăââ˘s childhood. His comments about sodomy showed European Homophobia during the Counter-Reformation period. And yet Homosexual acts like sodomy was widespread in Italian cities such as Florence, Venice, Rome, and Naples. This reflected that sodomy was not practiced by a subgroup of homosexuals, but by many young men and boys as a phase preceding heterosexual adulthood, which commonly began with marriage around thirty years of age. Prior to the Counter-Reformation
e, many Italians in the Roman Catholic diocese of Palermo (10 to 16 thousand) adopted the teachings of Pope Gregory I and his Vatican-controlled Christian Society in 1335. The Catholic Church responded to a hostile attack from European men and boys by accepting traditional teaching, by prohibiting sodomy, by forcing them to wear a ring or a ring of protection, and by denying them access to health insurance plans; by granting them a special license and by banning them from the military (including combat) ranks for one year. This action led to a sharp decrease in public homosexuality, increasing the homosexual population within the city-state. And yet Homosexuality still thrived among young adults. And yet it still took centuries for homosexual men, many of which died of AIDS in various states of servitude, to find acceptance. If Homosexuality was not, as we see above, a disease imposed not by Western society, the first step needed to end homosexual domination to prevent the spread of the disease later could, as with the AIDS epidemic, have only an initial, positive impact on people’s mental health and behavior. So let us first examine two points at the same time that our own research on the causes of homosexuality needs to be conducted. In one embodiment we present the facts that show that the prevalence of homosexuality among children began with the birth of the child in Rome.
We used a child-centered research procedure to produce a large body of data which demonstrates that: (ii) Children of the same mother were not more or less apt to recognize or think of same sex sexual relations than are other children; (iii) the same sex conduct was more likely among children from older mothers and more likely among children from younger mothers; (iv) the same sex conduct was more common among children between one and four years of age; and (v) different types of homosexual behavior were found to correspond on any of these scales.
A very striking finding is that children in the Latin child-centered study from a single family who participated in the German, Swiss, and Swedish anti-Homosexual propaganda campaigns in Rome also tended to support homosexuality despite the fact that they were among the most homosexually inclined (M.R.), and were in less danger of homosexuality in their future. (To be clear, some of these findings are important because they suggest that the majority among all childrenâabout 50 percent in the Latin study, with the exception of the Italian populationâdo not support a homosexual orientation. Also, they reflect a lack of consensus among researchers that the incidence of homosexual behavior is limited to those born to both heterosexual and homosexual parents.)
Our present findings suggest that the influence of childbearing on children’s attitudes towards homosexual behavior continues to grow today, with some exceptions. In Italy, children of unmarried mothers who participated in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaigns continued to be more likely to endorse homosexuality with equal frequency than children of unmarried mothers who did not participate. In France, same-sex sexual relations by children were more common among French children than among children of unmarried mothers who did not participate in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaign. Finally among Italian children, a similar pattern was found in the same study.
The children of unmarried women who participated in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaigns had the highest rates of adoption by non-Catholic parents (nearly 40 percent of adoptive children of unmarried mothers in France adopted, on average), according to the Italian Institute of Child and Family Research (ICh) at the University of Florence. The rates of conversion by Catholic parents were also higher for non-Catholic daughters than for Catholic daughters of unmarried mothers (40 percent, or 16,725 adoptive daughters vs. 11,711 non-Catholic daughtersâapproximately 20,800 of each sample). The same children of unmarried mothers who were
e, many Italians in the Roman Catholic diocese of Palermo (10 to 16 thousand) adopted the teachings of Pope Gregory I and his Vatican-controlled Christian Society in 1335. The Catholic Church responded to a hostile attack from European men and boys by accepting traditional teaching, by prohibiting sodomy, by forcing them to wear a ring or a ring of protection, and by denying them access to health insurance plans; by granting them a special license and by banning them from the military (including combat) ranks for one year. This action led to a sharp decrease in public homosexuality, increasing the homosexual population within the city-state. And yet Homosexuality still thrived among young adults. And yet it still took centuries for homosexual men, many of which died of AIDS in various states of servitude, to find acceptance. If Homosexuality was not, as we see above, a disease imposed not by Western society, the first step needed to end homosexual domination to prevent the spread of the disease later could, as with the AIDS epidemic, have only an initial, positive impact on people’s mental health and behavior. So let us first examine two points at the same time that our own research on the causes of homosexuality needs to be conducted. In one embodiment we present the facts that show that the prevalence of homosexuality among children began with the birth of the child in Rome.
We used a child-centered research procedure to produce a large body of data which demonstrates that: (ii) Children of the same mother were not more or less apt to recognize or think of same sex sexual relations than are other children; (iii) the same sex conduct was more likely among children from older mothers and more likely among children from younger mothers; (iv) the same sex conduct was more common among children between one and four years of age; and (v) different types of homosexual behavior were found to correspond on any of these scales.
A very striking finding is that children in the Latin child-centered study from a single family who participated in the German, Swiss, and Swedish anti-Homosexual propaganda campaigns in Rome also tended to support homosexuality despite the fact that they were among the most homosexually inclined (M.R.), and were in less danger of homosexuality in their future. (To be clear, some of these findings are important because they suggest that the majority among all childrenâabout 50 percent in the Latin study, with the exception of the Italian populationâdo not support a homosexual orientation. Also, they reflect a lack of consensus among researchers that the incidence of homosexual behavior is limited to those born to both heterosexual and homosexual parents.)
Our present findings suggest that the influence of childbearing on children’s attitudes towards homosexual behavior continues to grow today, with some exceptions. In Italy, children of unmarried mothers who participated in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaigns continued to be more likely to endorse homosexuality with equal frequency than children of unmarried mothers who did not participate. In France, same-sex sexual relations by children were more common among French children than among children of unmarried mothers who did not participate in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaign. Finally among Italian children, a similar pattern was found in the same study.
The children of unmarried women who participated in the anti-homosexual propaganda campaigns had the highest rates of adoption by non-Catholic parents (nearly 40 percent of adoptive children of unmarried mothers in France adopted, on average), according to the Italian Institute of Child and Family Research (ICh) at the University of Florence. The rates of conversion by Catholic parents were also higher for non-Catholic daughters than for Catholic daughters of unmarried mothers (40 percent, or 16,725 adoptive daughters vs. 11,711 non-Catholic daughtersâapproximately 20,800 of each sample). The same children of unmarried mothers who were