Yeah, it's sweeping. But I note that Henry C.K. Liu seems to be in accord with it, more or less.
How about we define xenophobia the way it is normally defined, that is a hatred or fear of foreigners. Now, in the case of the Chinese, as I noted, the periods of xenophobia, which have been marked by the banning and suppression of foreign religions, has usually taken the form of an attitude of superiority on the part of the dwellers of the Middle Kingdom towards the outer inferior world. However, it is interesting to note that the outbreaks of this have also coincided with periods following defeats by foreigners and thus could be viewed as a defensive reaction. When China has been truly strong, as in the periods I mentioned before, it has generally been much more open to outside influences and not afraid of them (the Chinese leaders, that is).
Now there is not such a simple relation with trade, although the periods of xenophobia have also tended to be periods in which foreign trade relations have been resisted, with anybody, not just would-be imperializing Europeans. But, there is not an absolute relation.
Thus the 1700s Emperor Qianlong (Ch'ien-lung) was very strong and oversaw a period of Chinese expansion, including gaining considerable control over Tibet and conquering Xinjiang. But he resisted British entreaties that he open China up to British imports. In a famous reply to the British special emissary in 1793 he declared (more or less, this is a translation): "Our celestial empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There is therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians."
Of course about 40 years later the British would forcibly open China to opium imports. So, Qianlong was rather wise on that one.
Aside to Brett Knowlton (as this is my last post of the day or I go over):
There is nothing at all "natural" as you claim about categorizing people as black, white, Asian, Latino or whatever. These are all imposed and arbitrary social conventions, a point that I think Niles has been trying to make. There are societies that do not judge or categorize people by the color of their skin. The absurdity of the Asian and Latin categorizations can be seen by the fact that especially among these "groups" people identify much more strongly with their tribal/national origins than with these ridiculous artificial categories that get imposed in the US. Thus there are many "Asians" who only discover that they "belong" in this category when they go to college and "learn" it. Before that they were Chinese, Japanese, etc. Something similar goes on with "Latinos".
As I noted earlier, one of the peculiarities of the "black" experience of slavery in America was that it obliterated such tribal identities by and large. The slaves were slaves and were "black" even when they were pretty darned white. "Europeans" are somewhat intermediate in this, with many remembering their ethnic/national heritages pretty well. But there are many "white" Americans, largely labeled "WASPs", whose identities are also mush like the "blacks" with many different nationalities actually in their ancestry, but these being largely forgotten in the homogenizing experience of being "white" in America for a long time. Of course there are WASPs who have mostly English ancestry, know it, and are very proud of it, but they are a minority of "WASPs".
BTW, I've had about enough of all this More Oppressed Than Thou stuff. My (Russian) wife calls me "just another gypsy horse thief." So, if people don't behave, I'm gonna get out my horse whip and...and...and...well, so there! :-)
To Snitgrrl. Sorry about the misID. Saw "Paula" in your message and thought it was part of your signature. You two do sound kind of similar. Nice to meet ya. If you want one of the people in my little scenario to be bi, it's OK with me. So, what kind of insurance did you sell? :-). Barkley Rosser
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:14:29 -0800 (PST) Dennis R Redmond <dredmond at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
>
> > I would note that Chinese history is marked by a
> > perpetual oscillation between openness to the outside world
> > and a closed-in xenophobia marked by attitudes of
> > superiority.
>
> This is an awfully sweeping generalization. How do you measure
> xenophobia in preindustrial societies, anyway? Trade links can also create
> violence where none existed, e.g. the slave trade which was
> integral to the European colonization of the outside world; earlier
> societies didn't have the mass communication or media to create true
> multicultural tolerance. Isn't this really superimposing ideologies of
> globalization on periods which were much more complex and contradictory
> than that?
>
> -- Dennis
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu