https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy Share your ideas here en-us 2018-02-13 11:55:31 UTC 2023-10-10 12:01:55 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/330927742 Through imperialism, the West believed that they were helping Asia by “educating” them based on the westernized model of modernization. As mentioned by many, it was a very Eurocentric view and the West never considered Asia as a force to be reckoned with. China had proven otherwise as they were the most highly developed and had the most technologically advanced economies in the 1700s. It was China’s modern system of government, national culture and cohesive society that were emulated by Europeans. Furthermore, while Europeans were commending themselves for having such unique free markets and private property, China had it too and was labelled more efficient in these areas. Hence, I find that the West was rather conceited to claim that they were the pioneers of modernization when in fact they simply had the means to display their prowess unlike Asia who were focused on building their nations culturally and economically.

]]> 2019-02-13 17:28:13 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/330927742 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/331064423 The West has tried to characterise pre-modern Asian societies through models of society that have occurred in European history. As Professor Askew concludes, the definitions that have been attributed to, mainly Chinese, society are poorly fitting; he shows how each term does not work. 
In western thought Asia has been characterised as a backwards continent, as with most countries outside of Europe, with Europeans bringing modern technology and agriculture. While the Europeans did bring 'New World' crops to China which had a major effect on the lives of people living in rural areas and changed farming and cuisine in China, it is an unfair assumption of the West to think that pre-modern Asia was behind Europe in terms of modernisation; Professor Askew states that China had a highly monetised economy and Europeans relied on exports of goods they couldn't produce, such as porcelain and silk. ]]> 2019-02-13 21:50:21 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/331064423 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2331283517 The typical Eurocentric view has, as explained by both Dr Askew and Marks, been characterised by a blanket dismissal of Asian developments and progress, in the place of European - a supposedly grander, and greater level of advancement. The crowning piece of evidence lying in the Industrial Revolution, as indisputable proof of a European superiority technologically. Marks has highlighted that this is fundamentally incorrect, and puts forward the idea that the developments of Europe owed much to that of Asia, and that China did not have an industrial revolution of its own, is owed more to obstacles than an inherent 'backwardness', again evidenced through the focus taken on education in the election of government officials over a birth right, far predating Europe, and also its distinction in the production of goods such as porcelain and silks. ]]> 2022-10-07 16:50:00 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2331283517 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2337776412 For many in the West, Film and TV have informed our understanding of the world around us. This is especially the case for places which we may not have been, in this instance many parts of Asia. For example, the American television series 'Dr Quinn: Medicine Woman' portrays Chinese medicinal practices as archaic and less advanced than those in the West, and several other historical films and TV series make reference to the ancient practice of "Footbinding". This may lead to the perception in the west that China was less advanced and lacking in scientific development during the pre-modern period. ]]> 2022-10-12 23:23:44 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2337776412 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2725704658 Premodern Asian Societies has been inaccurately portrayed by Western perspectives. As Professor Askew stated, European's introduction of the 'new world crops', played an immense role in the development Asian societies, especially China, however it is also important to recognize that even before such intervention, China was already prosperous with goods such as porcelain and silk. It can also be argued that China was first to effectively modernize their economy, as evidenced by the much influence they had on neighboring countries like Vietnam, Korea and Japan with their trade tribute (nations had to adhere to the Chinese calendar, culture and language). Although as both professor highlights that western view reiterates the importance of the industrial revolution that Europe had, which showcases the real modernization of Europe's society. But as professor Askew suggests, the development of pre-modern Asian societies requires another perspectives, which offers more significance to the political progression that China had, which Europe adopted.]]> 2023-09-29 07:46:53 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2725704658 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2730047603 There is a common perception that the West is the epitome of development and civilisation. This notion has been instilled among many of us due to decades of colonialism and indoctrination of our minds by media and education systems. On the contrary of this prevalent point of view, many of the aspects of proggress that we witness today have stemmed from Asia which is the largest continent in the world that comprises of people from a diverse range of ethnicities and cultures in different regions. Until Western imperialism reached its doorstep the economies of the sub-continent and East Asia flourished. For instance India's GDP accounted for 25% of the total world GDP prior to colonisation. However, this plunged to 2% by the time the British left. The Western colonial powers  did not take into consideration the varying social structures of these regions when they implemented their systems in Asia which stagnated it's progress. They adopted a policy of "divide and rule" which have led to longstanding conflicts and disputes in many parts of Asia. Then they tell us that their advancement is due to the superiority of their values and customs and that the decline of our progress is solely because of the backwardness of our cultures and social norms!]]> 2023-10-03 11:16:22 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2730047603 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731017510 The study of history pre-1800 being commonly used as an explanation of later societies and a bridge between the Middle Ages and modern history as opposed to a period of history in it's own right, combined with the Eurocentric view of history mentioned by both Askew and Marks, has led to the earlier and far more efficient development of China and other Asian countries having been ignored in light of the 'European exceptionalism' argument. The notion of modernity in western civilisations comes mainly from the industrial revolution post 1800, the development of the new world and its riches, and the way in which large amounts of wealth were achieved in a short timespan, ignoring the foundations laid down by Asian countries before this occurred as well as the environmental differences that allowed these developments. The newer scholars viewing the development of the modern world through a broader and more global sense have uncovered that much of the economic development seen has found it's roots within Asian societies, through both the systems being found to be more efficient, as well as the support it lent to western countries such as the uk in order to stimulate their economies through trade.]]> 2023-10-03 23:02:53 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731017510 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731662016 Western thought seemed to have characterised pre-modern Asian societies as feudal or even might I say ancient when in fact, as Professor Askew said, they were arguably much more advanced than Europe in certain aspects such as government officials where they were electing officials via examination results rather than status or nobility. The models of Marxist approach and the Stimulus approach fails to fir traditional chinese society as these views tend to look at pre-modern Asian societies, in this instance 1700s China as feudal or even primitive. ]]> 2023-10-04 08:10:04 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731662016 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731708115 Traditionally, Western thought seems to have painted Asian societies as less developed, less advanced, and even intrinsically inferior -- the (discounted) idea that the Industrial Revolution & modernity stemmed from Europe due to Europe's unique (and the implication is, therefore superior) culture of rationality etc. The assumption is that non-industrialized societies are inferior and not modern; I'd question that, though, and ask if technological advancement is necessarily the only earmark of a developed society. 

Dr Askew's point about how the civil service exams and emphasis on education/rationality in China inspired Europe's enlightenment was especially interesting, because it suggests that the 'unique' characteristics of European culture that enabled the rise of modernity weren't necessarily European in origin. ]]> 2023-10-04 08:47:06 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2731708115 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2734165006 In the year 1963, a Hollywood blockbuster- ' 55 Days in Peking' was screened in theaters. It is a classic showcase of China's apparent 'backwardness' compared to Western Colonial Power in the Century of Humiliation(1840s-1940s), and of course, ended with a classic American heroic tale, where Major Lewis save the day, flags of foreign powers raised across Peking, and the Boxers brutally suppressed by the Western Powers. Coincidentally, it seems that most Western filmmakers were more focused on this particular era, whereby Western Powers had finally gain certain technological advantage over China. It seems that to Western audience that China history only existed after the British won the First Opium War.

Historically, China had always be more advanced then most civilizations in the world. The European barely had any innovation after the fall of Western Roman Empire till the Renaissance. Meanwhile, the Tang and Song Dynasty practically flourished and were leading in technologies for almost a 1000 years.

But, tell me is there any Western Movie that showcases the Tang or Song Dynasty?

And now, let's talk about values.

In each and single Western films that is about Asia/Asians/ the Orient, Western Core Values will always emerge victorious over the Asian Values in seemingly all the movies screened.

Asians are always being perceived of having a strange, bizarre-looking sets of rules and actions to the audience, before, giving in to the more 'advance' , 'modernistic' Western values.

Be it in the World of Suzie Wong, Crazy Rich Asians, The Last Emperor and even Oscar award winning Everything Everywhere All at Once, in the end, the 'backward, orthodox' thinking Asians, will just buys in Western Values in the same old routine repeated in different dozen of movies. 

Most Average Joe perceived a certain culture from Hollywood. With such, stereotypical mechanism in place, it is no doubt westerners thinks Asia is inferior in both ways.


 ]]> 2023-10-05 15:32:52 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2734165006 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2737366972 The idea of pre-modern Asia has been warped by western ideas of superiority and has wrongly classed it as a society so far behind from those of Europe. This ignorance has played into the lack of knowledge about pre-modern Asia ignoring factors like their focus on education. ]]> 2023-10-08 22:35:52 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2737366972 https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2739810241 The perception of pre-modern Asia comes from the fact that there was a lack of European style colonialism and coal power to fund an industrial revolution. But, as Dr. Askew argues, China had such vast manpower that it would've been a waste of labour to depend on machinery. The Chinese economy was highly sophisticated and a lot more efficient than many of the European powers. That said, upon interaction with the European powers, the crops gained allowed for them to grow immensely in population - but it's a mistake to say they were "backwards" beforehand.]]> 2023-10-10 12:01:55 UTC https://padlet.com/neil_hughes/ojbtmehrfsjy/wish/2739810241