jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Is President/Prime Minister or President/Secretary of State a better combination

  1. profile image60
    peter565posted 9 months ago

    Is President/Prime Minister or President/Secretary of State a better combination

    When US was formed, China was still most powerful, even influence western elite, US State Department(S.D) established then is same as then China government, whose State affair is admin by Emperor assisted by (S.D) headed by Secretary of State(S.S) (Except US got President instead of Emperor). But pre 14thAC, State affair was admin by Prime Minister(P.M) appointed by Emperor, but Emperor can admin State affair, via removing P.M who disobey him and appointing one who obey him. Pre 14thAC Emperor are hands on administrator, post 14thAC, Emperor leave it all to S.S.(Till abolishing S.D in 18th AC)

  2. stephenteacher profile image81
    stephenteacherposted 9 months ago

    China was not most powerful when US was formed. The British Empire was. China was a non-player on the world stage. France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, et. al. were much more powerful than China. Britain conquered many asian countries, including india and singapore, to name only two. The had squirmishes with the Chinese and defeated them. The entire coast was virtually colonies of foreigners in 1700's to 1800's. The opium wars were won by the british. Hong Kong left as completely under British control. The US made it quite clear that in that time also that free trade was going to be the norm. China had little to no power and the Qing dynasty had nothing left. It was not until the middle of the last century that China began to be a player. I have no idea what you mean that China was still most powerful when the US was formed. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were being carved up by Britain, France, Spain, Holland and Portugal. Yes, Holland once had the richest city in the world: Amsterdam.

    1. profile image60
      peter565posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      There is more to say, but not enough space on hubpages I would recommend u watch this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv2_Oe2o-FI and read this paper from Colombia university http://www.learn.columbia.edu/nanxuntu/ … /ideas.pdf

  3. profile image60
    peter565posted 9 months ago

    Actually that is inaccurate Stephen, British only become most powerful by 19th century, during 18th century, most of Europe (including British) was still in 2nd world status. Then China was more like the modern US, which mean they don't conquer despite been the most powerful, but was the leader of the free world, but only get military involve, when self interest was involved. But their more modernize none conquering position frequently leads many modern westerners to think they don't conquer because they are weak.

    During the 17th century, Europeans was conquering everywhere they go, but they had lots of problem establishing dominance in Asia, There was lots of recorded war from that era, all western domination was short live and last for less then a few months. Mostly due to China strike back. To say the west actually have dominate in Asia before 19th century, is like somebody from 300 years later thinking the Taliban dominated the US, in the early 21st century, purely base on their short live success, on September 11 bombing the twin tower. It was much the same case, then Europe came to conquer and establish dominance usually in outer islands and Chinese waters, the Asians usually give them 2~3 warning, and if the Europeans still ignore it, the Chinese attack, but because, military response time during the 17th century, was slower during that time in history, it usually take 1~2 months for the Chinese military to strike back and drive the Europeans out, but it did allow Europeans short live control of certain parts of Asia coast and waters, but to say Europe was more powerful then Asia base on that, is to say the Taliban is more powerful then the US, because they managed to bomb us on September 11. Macau for example, despite been a Portugal colony, it was only owned, by paying China yearly tribute, after Portugal failed to invade China in early 17th century and brings its riches back to Europe, like it did with South America, they try to establish trade, China agree and leased Macau to Portugal, since it make no sense for Chinese traders to travel to Europe for trade, as it got little to offer in trade. There is another war with Portugal when it try to conquer Malaysia and a 3rd one over slavery, as China was anti slavery and was providing blacks with asylum, I know one war with Spain, due to its attempt to control Asia water and Spain did control those waters for a few months, till Asia navy strike back. But Europe did control Taiwan, Philipine and Indonesia, those places due to been islands, was isolated from Asia mainland and was still in stone age, when Europeans arrive, the Chinese saw little interest they can gain via helping them and didn't send troops, to drive the Europeans out and only send troops to drive the Dutch out of Taiwan by mid 17th century, the Chinese's excuse was to liberate the Aboriginal Taiwanese from Dutch rule, but their real reason was to, use it as a navel military base to fight the Manchurians.

    But by mid 17th century, China was no longer the most powerful country in Asia either, due to civil war and economic melt down, this allow the Manchurians to conquer China, Mongolia, Tibet, Xian Jiang and finally by early 18th century the last defense post of the Chinese, which is Taiwan. The Manchurian Empire, is the Qing dynasty you are talking about.

    As an ill attempt to secure their power, the Qing dynasty established a highly monopolized government structure, local government power was dramatically decreas

 
working