# data[].attributes.headline
How pre-modern Asia has been seen through the eyes of the West

# data[].attributes.subject
How pre-modern Asia has been seen through the eyes of the West

# data[].attributes.body
In history, we mainly learn about everything through a Eurocentric/Westernised lens- things happened because of the West, or the West did something and everyone followed, including Asia. It has been argued in the past, particularly by Marxists, that the West is productive, rational, scientific, revolutionary- in contrast, Asia is weaker, lazier, less scientific and rather backwards in its approach to the economy and society. In reality, when looking deeper into this topic, this is not the case at all. In fact, the West benefited heavily from Asia at points, for example the trading system. Without the trading system between Europe and Asia, Europe wouldn't have been able to expand its economy as much, nor would it have been able to industrialise as quickly. Through this Eurocentric lens, we are led to believe that China/Asia is backwards because it never had the Industrial Revolution- but it had a very complex economy, and its resources/growing population meant it couldn't really have the same kind of revolution that the rest of Europe did. This doesn't necessarily mean that Asia was behind, or backwards- it just ran in a different way, and had to work around its limitations. So, Western views have meant that pre-modern Asia has been viewed as backwards and not as quick to modernise, as well as it being lazy. However, upon reading about this, that isn't the case.

-Holly

# data[].attributes.body
Asia was characterised by the West as a 'passive, lazy and incapable' of becoming modernised even though they had some of the most advanced systems of country-wide culture through education being idolised, and most of the advances towards modernity that were seen in European, by historians at the time, were actually already happening in Asia. For example, China's peasant class was already having smaller families in order to become more economically stable, compared to their Western neighbours who only started to do so as a result of the Black Death. Many past European historians have also viewed Asia as getting ideas form Europe to become more modernised when in fact China was probably the base plan for 'European enlightenment' with its monotonised economy.

# data[].attributes.body
It is evident that pre modernized Asian societies were viewed by Western civilizations to have been  under developed and backwards and third world. This was as a result of Asia's lack of industrial revolution ,due to geographical restrictions. Many pin pointing this revolution to have catalyzed Europe's lead into modernization at the time. While its evident that Asia was more developed than Europe anticipated, favoring education over heritage in terms of governance and having riches such as silks and silvers, Western societies still painted Asia out as 'lazy' and 'passive'.

# data[].attributes.body
How pre-modern Asia has been characterized in the West differed from time to time. In the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period, Asia is consistently seen as an "Exotic Other" which is equal but different to the West. However when the West overtook the East during the 18th and 19th Centuries, Asia is still the "Exotic Other" but has either "contributed its share in history" or seen as a foreign equal yet flawed or devilish.

# data[].attributes.body
China was undoubtedly a major great power of Asia as it deeply influenced the region economy, culture and trade prior the industrial revolution in Europe. Due to geographical isolation, Europeans knowledge on Asia (particularly China and India) were limited to extend and it was not much being discussed about in that period of time. Therefore, contemporary Europeans intellectuals tend to characterised pre-modern Asia in Europeans model as they quickly dug into their society. At first, European discovered that the land ownership in China were similar to Western feudal system but in contrast they have the gentry class which was not inherited by blood but education. This is a great example where Europeans narrowed down its global reach by adopting European model to explain the global society. To articulate, it is very sophisticated to characterised the Asian community because pre-modern Asia were groups of homogenous tribes that have distinct culture and rituals which concreted the Asian society.
In modern days, Asia is one of the fastest growing regions in the world in terms of economy as they have outreach the global community through globalisation by adopting modern economy models. As in Kenneth Pomeranz's view, Asia particularly China can develop faster than any European powers during the Industrial Revolution as if China had abundance of resources like coal and workforce. In conclusion, Asia might dominate the world if this trend continues

# data[].attributes.body
In the 17th century, Asia (and China in particular) was thought to be full of opportunities.This continued until the weakness of Asia was discovered during the war

# data[].attributes.body
In western view pre-modern Asian societies been characterised  passive,  irrational,  lazy,  despotic,  and  incapable  on  its  own  of developing modern institutions (Hobson 2004: ch. 10). Very subjective to critic on other regional groups, regardless of some objective conditions like energy sources and geographic advantages. But the California school then take the world together to view the European rise, this view enhance the function of Asia.

# data[].attributes.body
Pre-modern Asian societies are often characterised with preconceived misconceptions by Western societies. The Eurocentric idea that modernity comes hand in hand with industrialisation facilitates the negative views of Asian societies, including the thought that all of these Eastern areas are simply 'lazy' (Hobson) and sweeping nepotism (Marx). These are only two reasons why many had the impression that capitalism was not successful in China, which through a European lens assumes that such countries cannot be successful. The irony of this is that Europe was rather dependant on certain aspects of Chinese trade, such as silk and silver especially in a period around 1000 and the years 1400-1800. Pomeranz argues that had China adopted unfree labour and the fortune of coal, they could have easily followed the footsteps of European industrial revolution. In my opinion, it is quite possible China could have surpassed European success following this evolution, not solely because of sheer size and population, but also as they were often as advanced, or more so in certain areas, before industrialisation.

# data[].attributes.body
The west categorise modernisation by an industrial revolution with access to coal seeing modernisation as linear. They interpret some of Asias modern advances like education, exams and their culture as not development but this isn't true. China had different resources to Europe therefore developed differently not in a Eurocentric way. China had silver and silk which meant economically it could have been very successful but because of a geographical block development was stunted. A new perspective when studying Asia is needed instead of viewing Europe on a pedestal and Asia as lazy

# data[].attributes.body
cultural and economic differences as reasons to explain the supposed "inferiority" of Asia.
favorite_border
0
你的头像
添加评论

# data[].attributes.body
The West have previously seen Asia/China as a far land that has 'weird' culture with people who lacked the ingenuity of the West which allowed for the Industrial Revolution. One point I found particularly interesting was the role of the Islamic Empire which created a block between the West and East which sheltered the West from knowing about the vast economic and monetary power possessed by China. The mistake made is that many think that an Industrial Revolution is essential to moving forwards but Asia had found their 'Industrial Revolution' but it was not recognised by Western intellectuals.
Another point was the uncovering of silver that allowed England to tap into the Chinese economy rather than the British just uncovering a mysterious Asian land with some special goods.

# data[].attributes.body
China and premodern Asian societies have fallen victim to a vastly ethnocentric approach of viewing modernity, largely characterised by the way Europe view appropriate and civilised cultural practises in comparison with their own as well as viewing modernity as purely related to industry and an industrial boom. This eurocentric view is very limited and ignores the many advances made by China including their leadership and government model, emphasis on education and consequent examinations, as well as their natural resources and great capacity for trade. Europe have come to adopt many of these practices themselves and even attempted travel to Asia to procure items such as Porcelain and Silk. In this way looking at China and other Asian societies through Marxist lenses and other approaches is solely reductionist and incomplete as it means to suggest Asia as backwards and futile when in reality Europe has often taken direction and increased its fortunes from Asia and Chinas structures, resources and societal set-up. Much of Europe's reasons for being viewed as advanced both come from a European definition of modernity as well as luck. This luck of having coal and the means to an industrial revolution, as well as having found silver to use to trade with Asia and also not having to pay for their labour costs. All these factors seem to have been ignored until recently, and have created a fabricated interpretation of Europe, in that it was in fact so far ahead of the rest of Asia

# data[].attributes.body
Pre-modern Asian societies have been characterized as underdeveloped and Third World. This is due to the fact that unlike Europe, China did not go through an Industrial Revolution during the 1800's - many think this is because China was 'lazy' and 'passive' in comparison to a scientifically advanced Europe, as well as due to cultural differences (Weber) and despotism (Marx). However, this was not the case. This is because one of the only reasons China was not able to go through the Industrialization process was due to ecological and geographical reasons (a lack of natural resources like coal and iron and an increase in famines caused by severe droughts). China itself was known for it's rich materials such as porcelain and silk, meaning it was able to trade materials and was more than capable of having a highly developed economy in the 1700's - which it did have. However, due to the geographical position of China as Marks mentioned, China was unable to successfully have enough materials needed to industrialize (coal and iron) and also keep the people of China alive and well. This could be put down to the size of China and the large population along side the location. But we forget about these important factors when we learn about Europe's industrialization and also forget that if Britain hadn't been on top of a large abundance of coal then Britain would still be mainly agricultural like China. As a result of the history of Industrialization being so Eurocentric, we often forget to look at the reason behind why the West could in industrialize and why the East could not. As a result, a lot of Western thought characterizes and assumes that the Eastern countries were lazy, backwards, fatalistic and stuck in medieval like tendencies.

# data[].attributes.body
Western thought is self-evidently Eurocentric, thus Pre-modern Asian societies are defined in the periphery of the West and always in a lesser light. They are characterised as less progressive both in development and thought- For example, the question of why capitalism didn't develop in China is attributed to cultural differences and their 'passive, irrational, lazy, and despotic' nature. In reality, China was an equal match for Europe (if not better) prior to the 18th century with it being a global hub for trade and ideas (putting it as the global centre instead of periphery), as well as a highly efficient economy. Additionally, it has been put forward that Europe's rise with the Industrial Revolution can be largely attributed to geographical coincidence and luck with coal resources and unfree labour, as opposed to European excellence or uniqueness. This shows that current Western approaches used to interpret Asian history needs to rid themselves of the Orientalist view and be revitalised with a new perspective of Asia.

# data[].attributes.body
We see throughout history that the West has always thought of the Asian societies as backwards and under-developed yet the West tends to profit of the Asian nations for trade as well as to assert their dominance over these nations. We see the West constantly talk about how Asia is inferior compared to the West but this has been proven wrong again and again due to the richness of resources in Asia as well as the highly skilled merchants in countries such as China. We can see this throughout history on the differing perspectives on Western imperialism. The West views it as "Asia not being ready for modernisation and the gifts that the West had to offer" while Asian scholars views the west as " the society built upon a cult of money and power, tempered by destruction" as quoted by Tagore.

While the West wants us to view the relationship between the East and The West as a 'relationship', we are aware that the West has done nothing but destroy everything and impose their ideas unto us and while Asia is becoming more modernised as time passes, the West has made us,Asian nations struggle to pick up the fragments that Western imperialism has left upon us.

# data[].attributes.body
Pre-modern Asian societies have been characterized as backwards and underdeveloped in Western thought. Demonstrating a Eurocentric point of view, scholars  have always associated modernity with Europe. Many misconceptions about Asian history and culture have been propagated for decades. For example, Dr. Askew specified that China was considered economically weak. In reality, its merchants were highly skilled, trading all over the country and Southeast Asia.

In general, it seems as though Europeans attributed Asia’s social, cultural, and economic prosperity to their involvement in the region.

# data[].attributes.body
Asian societies seemed to be inferior to Western by their thought. From the video and reading, Asian,  like China, was considered less sufficient economy, less integrated or less industrialized than Western. But, it is not true. In China, it had monetarized and sufficient economy, recruited personnel through exam. China should be more advanced than Europe until 18th century.
From the reading, the rise of Europe is contingent. That was because of location and colony of England. It had enough coal to promote industrialization, escaping from environmental constraints, shortage of lands, limiting the growth of agriculture.

But I have one question.
What did colony and slaves in America effect England's industrialization?
the demand for clothes for slaves triggered it or the slaves were brought to England and worked as labor in factory to support the revolution?

# data[].attributes.body
Pre-modern Asian societies were often perceived as backward and inferior to Western, European societies. However, as we've seen in the video and the reading, this perception was often incorrect. China, for example, had a more advanced economy than many European ones and produced better quality porcelain and silk. Furthermore, Western thought has tended to try to apply models developed in the West, such as feudalism or capitalism, to China and other Asian countries, when these models may not be at all appropriate. In short, Western thought, until more recently, was largely incapable of understanding and appreciating the differences between the West and Asia, instead incorrectly perceiving these cultural and economic differences as reasons to explain the supposed "inferiority" of Asia.