China's soft power gap

I think you can say with confidence that state capitalism works -- for a while. From what I read the economic benefits and social costs of China's booming economy are unevenly distributed, and the energy sector is on the verge of crisis. Soft power is about hegemony, and the American variety (as well as that of the postwar Japanese) goes down easier pretty much everywhere in the East. I think what Fukuyama was trying to say almost twenty years ago is that governments that aren't in some way answerable to the people will inevitably be more feared rather than respected. (I know, I know -- that idea is soooo DWEM!)

As a veteran of previous arguments on this topic, until there's a consensus on what soft power is, there is little to be gained by arguing about who has it.

To be concrete:

1. Does Japan have soft power WRT the US?

2. How much of that soft power is experienced at the level of:

a. international diplomacy?
b. nondiplomatic government agencies?
c. businesses and NGOs?
d. average citizens?

3. What do the following contribute to Japan's soft power?

a. The memories of Japan's economic miracle?
b. News coverage of Japan's open society?
c. Japan's Central Bank dollar holdings?
d. Japanese foreign aid?
e. Toyota's reputation for quality?
f. Japanese baseball?
g. Pokemon?

Until there is at least a rough consensus about which questions are important...

It would be fascinating to see is the Chinese economic "miracle" would have even been possible if coerced labor, or even slave labor in some cases, was not at the disposal of the central government. It is also interesting to note that in the complete absence of regulation on industrial emissions and the like and a lack of anything resembling organized labor, anything really is possible. Many people seem to forget those halcyon days when Robber Barons, er, Industrial Statesmen, dominated the American business scene.

I wonder whether China will get as much of a boost as they expect from the Summer Olympics. Athletes are being advised to breath the air as little as possible. Expect to see a lot of atheletes wearing gas masks between competitions. Athletes are told that if they eat local food they risk failing their drug tests. Every bit of meat served in the Olympic village will be purchased outside the country and flown in.

The earthquake generated sympathy, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of children died because Chinese schools used substandard construction.

My (admittedly uneducated) guess is that Chinese soft power isn't going to increase much as long as they have the sort of society that produces stories like the ones I mention above.

As a Chinese student, I think Beijing Olympics,in some respects, is an economically unsound project. However, it does evoke Chinese nation pride which is very important to China. Because Chinese seem have lost their confidence in central goverment and even themselves.
I don't think that Chinese power will continue to grow at current rates after the Beijing Olympic. In fact, people in China benefit few things from it. They are just persuaded to buy large number of things.
Beijing Olympic is like a huge advertisment of China. The question remains at to whether this advertisement works or not.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Your intuitions on the inverse correlation are correct. Most of Asia (bar Japan and Vietnam) and most of the Pacific Rim countries don't view China as negatively as heartland America; or Europe.

China's economy is an engine of growth for the entire region, and it somewhat delinks the world's economic fortunes from being tied solely to one country (the United States). We want it to last.

That means no sabre-rattling from you Americans. Thanks.

Yes, and Japan's MITI and other government control of the economy has given it some of the world's strongest growth rates. Japan will continue to dominate global markets, to increase its share of manufactured goods, and to buy up premium US real estate.

-- My dad, ~1989

If I understand the concept of sovereign wealth funds, they are under the control of the government. In that case, they are necessarily under political control.

I have worked at two different levels of government and have concluded that politics permeates EVERYTHING in government. If the funds are under political control, decisions will be made on political rather than economic grounds. The system may achieve economic success for a while, but it won't over the long term.

Inevitably, political considerations will trump economic ones. That is because in government people are hired, fired, promoted, and demoted on political grounds. If you institute a civil service, you may insulate workers from the broader politics only to create a politics internal to the civil service system. Witness SEIU.

Issues can be decided on an economic basis or a (broadly defined) political basis. There are no other bases, and only an economic basis offers hope for long-term success.

The Chinese are great copy cats, but hardly creators.

This is inline with a culture that never discovered Logic, and which frowns on intellectual pursuits for their own sake.

The foundation of strong economic progress must be balanced by the fulcrum of social ingenuity, that is, a delineated process of strategy and inertial compromise.

If a powerful central government were to temper its quasi-static excesses and funnel them toward a more organizational model of fluidity, the base functions of repressive regulations would permeate through the stratified industrial base.

In short, providing indemnity AND long-term conductivity within the global strategic market is important, not just for liquidity but also to keep prescribed monetary compliments in a "ready state".

1. No

2. No (and Chinese hard power isn’t that big relatively speaking, they got lots and lots of cheap labor but what else?)

China is like the abomination monster in The Incredible Hulk (2008) ( America is the Incredible Hulk?) It’s got too many different growth drugs shot into it to be healthy. Its growth cannot last the way it is going now because the environment is going toxic and resources are running short (I predict a war between India and China in future over resources).

Don’t make economic predictions without considering the culture. It’s a nation of walls. An introverted, self-involved kingdom. People’s priority is to their own family and then maybe to the government. The Chinese government expends huge – huge – resources controlling its own people – fearful of them (you’d be fearful of a possible mob of a billion+ too)

Chinese people want respect, and can be very friendly, but right now there is not wide-spread business ethics that promote an increase in soft power. Many Chinese business owners rely heavily on nepotism and protective deals that keep the resources in the family and close to home. Are we seeing any non-government-owned companies making a mark globally like Honda, Hyundai, Sony, …

So, their soft power has been only from the government and this isn’t working out so great. Much of the world has lost respect for China because of who they fund and befriend.

I believe Adam Smith already addressed the failings of a "sovereign wealth fund" AKA the king's treasury. It works, at times, and depending on the skill of the sovereign, and fails miserably in competition w. a free economy -- China's benefiting more from incompetence in DC and it's gross interference in the markets, and their own political skill, than any fundamental advantage. Similarly, the ME benefits mainly from natural resources, and in spite of their governance.

Here we go again -- the latest 'superior strain' of Asian capitalism.

The U.S. wouldn't be wringing its hands over its economic future but for Washington's disastrous and incessant meddling in the economy (high taxes, reckless spending, burdensome regulation).

The Japanese, Korean and Singaporean models -- each interesting and successful in its own way -- were, in turn, touted as the future of capitalism, largely by ignoring their manifest shortcomings.

China's impressive run is but 25 years old, starting from the less-than-zero shambles in which the nation found itself after Mao's various delusional experiments, and aided by cheap labor (until now) and the same mercantilist strategy successfully used by other Asian nations.

One hopes that economic progress in China -- indeed, everywhere, the world over -- continues. But it's a bit early in the game to answer your questions.

1. "The Chinese are great copy cats, but hardly creators."

Austin, qualify your comment please. The Chinese under China's govt. control... etc. etc. Otherwise, Chinese are pretty creative: those scientists in our national labs., and Ph.Ds in our top univerisities. A lot of them are from China. You can pick them out by their names: e.g. the names that begin with "X", "Q", and "Z". They are either Chinese expatriates holding student or work visas or very recent immigrants. Our research labs will be quite empty without them.

2. If the Chinese float their currency then it doesn't matter as much if crude oil prices rise againt the US dollar. The problem is the Chinese want to undercut our industries with artifically low currency. With their cheap goods flooding our market keeping a cap on our inflation, there is no need for the Fed to raise interest rates. The Chinese is at least as culpable as the Fed to keep the dollar low.

3. The Chinese would better raise their soft power at home before those thousands of protests and demos which occur everyday away from the media eyes get out of control and necessitate them to use hard power against their own people.

Recall that for a while, the Soviet Union had tremendous rates of growth with an economy that seemed to avoid the Great Depression, leading the Soviets by the 1950s to claim they'd bury us. By the 1970s, growth rates slowed to a crawl. My memory of this is that the Soviets registered great GDP growth by moving peasants to factories. The most efficient peasant put in the most inefficient factory will show up as a big jump in GDP. This worked for many decades but eventually, you run out of peasants and our useful factories to put them in.

I suspect much the same is happening today as poor Chinese peasants flood to the cities to find work. When that simple input is removed and China has to improve the efficiency of existing city workers (information and manufacturing) we'll see if they can beat the dismal Soviet record.

Given that China actually exports real products that people buy, unlike the old USSR, China may well have a better chance at making the leap from quantity to quality additions to their economy. But I wouldn't bet against the US model just yet--our mature and urbanized economy still chugs on without the cheap additives that fuel the Chinese growth right now. China isn't the first country to claim they will bury us.

Austin showing hilarious ignorance and bigotry. Try reading Joseph Needham's _Science and Civilization in China_ for a multi-volume catalogue of Chinese inventions and ingenuity.

And ancient China did produce its own logicians. I fail to recall the title, but a pioneering Chinese graduate of Columbia's doctoral program in philosophy wrote a general survey of early Chinese logical thought -- and it is a richer tradition than you can imagine.

You remind me of the 80s caricature of the Japanese-fearing American; quick to ridicule the apparent "non-creativity" of the Japanese. How perceptions change. Today the Japanese are regarded as being insanely creative.

This is a fine illustration of the maxim that nothing breeds prejudice like ignorance. Time to get over your prejudices, yes?

weighing in,
It would be nice if you gave some concrete examples of Chinese "ingenuity" in today's market place instead of all the yapping on civilization. Yeah, i have heard this "we are a great old civilization" meme before - trust me most Indians would tell you the same thing. I'm from India and even i got tired of these "great civilization" defenses after some time.

I dont know if you follow Asian politics closely but if you think that Asian countries other than Japan are blase' about China, you could nt be more wrong. India for one, has slowly woken up to the fact that the "peaceful rise" of China is nothing more than a myth - the more power you get, the more you want - its human nature. Not unique to Chinese, Japanese or American or any other people.

Asian countries are going with the flow right now - it does not make sense to aggravate China at this point in time. But this is more in line with how things are going right now rather than any "soft power". Can you demonstrate how exactly China has shown its "soft power" in the global scene that tilted the scales on a major issue ?

It never ceases to amaze me about how people over estimate the rise of China - its a mistake to underestimate them, but atleast we can stop exagerrating notions of which no one has been able to provide any concrete examples of.

DWPitelli above (#7) has the best response thus far. The issue is a lot more complex than is usually implied.

First, unquestionably, in the short run, starting from a bad origin of moribund socialism, a country can use its command capital to foster very rapid economic growth, and this is especially true where there are substantial technical capability and low wage rates. Japan, with its ever-present MITI (the terror and great hope of leftist economists up until about 1990 when Peter Drucker, among others, pointed out that, gaudy trade statistics notwithstanding, no Japanese company was making money any longer) and followed afterwards by South Korea and Taiwan.

Each such Asian country used its government as an economic weapon on behalf of its emerging businesses, particularly ROK in supporting the Chaebol. And each eventually saw its growth slow, though Taiwan was far more free-market, and has survived a bit better.

But every situation where government exercised its authority on behalf of its businesses ran aground in that respect. In fact, the objective eventually flipped from government supporting sound business to generate growth to business using government to compete and give the illusion of continued constant growth instead of actual performance. And the incestuous relationships have led to bubbles and corruption issues that far outweigh the relative economic impact of US hiccups, such as the current housing bubble. Had that occurred in Japan (remember the Japanese real estate boom of the late 1980's?) the government would have propped things up at the behest of the industry instead of permitting the needed corrections to take place.

The other issue just gaining some visibility, finally, in China, is that of corruption. Economic systems that are steeped in corruption that is then covered up by the governments end up in genuine crisis when the toothpick buildings feel a breeze. At present, there is finally a bubbling unrest in China at the local level over the games played by the party hacks who have engaged in serious self-dealing. Whenever the government is involved in such a "partnership" you are guaranteed to have bad decisions and mistrust. For all the economic ills of the US, the open society is its ultimate savior.

Chinese soft power?

You mean facilitating genocide in the Sudan?

Supporting North Korea's criminally insane regime?

Cuddling up with Burma's generals?

Doing any kind of deal with any of Africa's tinpot dictators?

Nagarajan Sivakumar,

Improve your reading comprehension. I didn't say that Chinese soft-power was potent now -- that's the entire point: it is relatively weak, far lagging its "hard" power, but will grow in time.

I was refuting the absurd ignorance of austin, who made an unqualified comment about Chinese cultural history that was patently false and easily refuted.

The Greeks today may be an indifferent people, but anyone who says that the Greeks "lack creative vitality" or some such nonsense based on their culture can be likewise refuted by pointing to history and the innovations of the ancient Greeks. You take the same lame (mistaken) cultural arguments as determinative without realizing that culture isn't static, and that the country in question (China) was never culturally poverished.

Everything from the compass to gunpowder to paper to the seismometer was invented by the Chinese. So there is nothing inherently "non creative" about China's culture, as austin erroneously suggests.

This is not to "exaggerate" current Chinese might, it is to point to the historical record in context, and to show that the 'culture is determinative' arguments are mistaken. And mistaken in the same way that cliches about Japanese "noncreativity" were mistaken.

I understand that as an Indian, you feel threatened by China's growth potential. Thankfully the Indian political leadership don't seem too bothered; in fact relations with China have never been better. I'm Asian and I don't see too many Pacific Rim countries getting too bothered either.

I suggest you get over it.

Kurmudge, the economic history of the early Republic is hardly sterling. If you think that corruption and in-dealing was not omnipresent in the United States, then you are living in a presentist dreamland.

Problems associated with China today -- such as flagrant violations of copyright and poor IP enforcement -- were the problems of America or any of the capitalist industrialized countries of yesteryear. See for example Doron S. Ben-Atar, _Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power_.

And again, culture is not entirely static. You presume that China's political culture, level of openness, and zeitgeist will remain the same now as in 20 years time. Even a moment's reflection will show how ridiculous that presumption is. The China of 20 years ago is vastly different from the China of now.

The China of the future -- and its political culture -- will be likewise unrecognizable in many respects. This bizarre need to see China as monolithic and culturally defective is inexplicable. Get over your latent prejudices.

Everyone always forgets that the only real basis for economic progress is a sound banking system. The U.S. has the soundest banking system in the world -- China has probably the least sound of any major power. Most of the loans which apparently hold up the Chinese banking system are non-performing ones. The system is built on air.

I don't think Austin was commenting on historical Chinese creativity. However, I've got to say that the current Chinese education system does not promote creativity.

That isn't to say the students aren't smart. They are; they also work a lot harder than American students, at all levels. For example, they often begin studying English in first grade. College students have insane class loads. Fifth graders study algebra, and homework gets heavy in primary school.

But they aren't taught to be creative. Everybody takes the same classes and there is a lot of rote memorization. All of the students in the same major at my college take the same classes. I get a LOT of identical answers on essay questions - down to the errors. Cheating is rampant. Getting them to think creatively, speak independently, or pick a side, is like pulling teeth. It's not that they don't think outside the box; they've learned not to think outside the line.

It's a generalization, but Chinese creativity is inhibited by education and culture. Creative people learn not to put their ideas forward. To a much greater extent than in the west, they risk losing face or being branded troublemakers, inharmonious obstacles to success, even if they have a better idea.

[...] liked this recent post from Daniel Drezner citing recent survey research on public perceptions of China’s [...]

Unless you are simply here to troll, you need to get over yourself. Speaking in ignorance and presumption when accusing others of same only makes you look foolish. Statements like "Everything from the compass to gunpowder to paper to the seismometer was invented by the Chinese" are both inaccurate -- paper (and related materials) was invented in more than one culture; the primacy of the Chinese invention of the compass is doubt, and referring to the Chinese device you identify with a seismometer is a stretch -- and somewhat illogical as there is no "everything" in that statement; what you are referring to are a few discrete ancient and unconnected inventions, not a continuum.

The fact is that mainland Chinese culture has produced no significant innovations of any sort since the Song Dynasty, about 1000 years ago. Current Chinese technology is wholly derivative -- this applies to the entire country's NII, power, transportation, and military. To give one telling example, as of 2000, the PLAN's most modern warship contained only two devices with a Chinese pedigree: the aforementioned compass and the stern-post rudder (though there is some question about that). Every other technology present, from the metallurgy of the hull to the propulsion to the weapons and electronics were of foreign origin. (In this particular case, directly purchased for the most part, along with manuals and console labels in French, Italian, German, and English.) Of course, Sinophiles have and will no doubt continue to produce massive works to defend China's inventions and ingenuity; unfortunately many of same are ignorant outside their field and hence lack any context in which to put their arguments. They also confuse, in some cases by design, invention and application. It may be a point of interest that a stern-post rudder appears on an ancient toy boat, but if it goes no farther than that, who cares? And it does end eventually up in a junk but that junk never ventures more than a few miles off shore, again who cares? What is significant is not the invention, but the application: the Europeans invented both the theory and the practice of the blue-water navy over a 1000 years ago, and with it the means for global power projection (eventual accomplished about 500 years ago). The PRC still lacks a blue water navy -- the PLAN cannot reliably operate even as far as the First Island Chain (their terminology) putting them in that regard some 1200 years behind us. Similar situations apply to almost all of the rest of China's historical innovations. Sinophiles are at pains however not to dwell on that.

So of course there are and always have been individual Chinese who are creative and innovative, and even minor sub-groups (such as the so-called Maritime Chinese) but that is beside the point. The point is the characteristics of Chinese culture and society that have prevented such individuals from leveraging their creativity in significant ways. To put it another way, the ideas invented by the ancient Greek changed the course of all human history; the ideas invented by the ancient Chinese could not even change China.

Nor, if you are trying to convince others of the wisdom of your words should you expose your lack of understanding of basic principles by make statements like: "Problems associated with China today — such as flagrant violations of copyright and poor IP enforcement — were the problems of America or any of the capitalist industrialized countries of yesteryear." The problem with the PRC is that it lacks -- and always has lacked -- the concept of the Rule of Law.

Regarding the original point of the original post, the whole question proceeds from a questionable premise: that the Chinese economy "has maintained its feverish growth" while the American economy "is at best stagnant." The second point is clearly false and the first highly debatable. As no one knows the size of the Chinese economy -- least of all the Chinese -- measuring its growth with any precision is not possible. With is certain is that the Chinese economy is not a large as usually claimed and its growth has been generally been exaggerated. Partly this is due to ignorance of the nature of the Chinese economy which leads Western observers to misinterpret key indicators and partly due to PRC efforts to deliberately mislead us as to their economic achievements. Of course producing misleading economic data is a very old Chinese tradition and it is used even more internally than externally, so the architects of the Chinese disinformation are often themselves being generally mislead. This gives a whole new slant to the notion of the blind (mis)leading the blind.

Further, western observers often fail to appreciate that there is growth and there is growth. The growth the PRC has experienced is of a particular kind and it heavily concentrated in only a few areas. The irony here is that the PRC is largely recreated the situation that existed in China in the first half of the 19th Century, that made it an easy -- almost trivial -- task for the British, followed by the other western powers, to essentially conquer China and usher in the Treaty Port Century, which has loomed so large in the Chinese official (and possibly public) consciousness ever since. Thus the pattern and nature of the PRC's recent growth has render the country vulnerable to serious disruption, yet the leadership has only a vague and nonproductive idea of this (as they do of much else). This is a very different animal than the growth experience by the US and other liberal democracies.

Finally, the nature of what Dr. Drezner terms China's "state-led development society" rests on unique characteristics of China's authoritarian culture. As such, it cannot be exported and thus does not serve as any sort of "model" for other nations. It is true that other authoritarian regimes find solace in the perceived "success" of the China "model" and may use it as an excuse to persist in their ways, but any developing nation that adopts China as it guide will find itself doomed to recapitulate China's history, which while certainly nasty and brutish has, alas, not been short.

C. Owen Johnson,

Do you have a point in that rambling diatribe? Or are you just a selectively blind bigot with an axe to grind?

"Current Chinese technology is wholly derivative"

No more than Japan's technology "is wholly derivative". Given that China is an indigenous space AND nuclear power one has to wonder if you're not a complete ignoramus.

"the ideas invented by the ancient Chinese could not even change China."

That's funny, since gun-power and paper made their way to Europe through the Middle East from China, changing the world, not merely China. Are you just uninformed, or completely daft?

As for my "everything" statement, I wasn't being literal. Not even the most ardent Sinophile can seriously assert that China invented literally "everything". But being as you're a bit slow on the uptake, you naturally fail to interprete the statement charitably for what it is -- that the Chinese made many groundbreaking inventions; enough to refute the claim that China's culture is necessarily uninnovative.

As for your much-lauded blue water navy, any historian or moderately informed person can tell you that China ruled the South China sea, its environs, the traderoutes, and had a vast blue water navy even before the Europeans were in on it. Zheng He was exacting tributes and sailing expeditions while the Europeans were still emerging from the dark ages.

That's about a hundred years before the advent of the age of the European sail. By historical accident and political machinations, the Ming dynasty turned inwards and decided to abandon naval exploration. But that does not obscure the undeniable fact that China had a blue water navy long before your beloved European nations.

You misstate the historical record to make a spurious claim of superiority.

We get it. You hate the PRC with phobic intensity -- you even somewhat fear it. So much so that you feel the need to put down Chinese civilization -- which by all scholarly accounts has been highly inventive -- so as to assuage your own sense of insecurity.

Being ignorant as you are, you compound your prejudices by being universally negative about China. And when a person is without exception negatively predisposed, we call him out for what he is: a bigot.

I pity you.

A Teacher in China,

I believe he was commenting on history. His claim that China "never discovered Logic" attests to the historical scope of his comment.

Another thing - the only thing more funny than the "China is going to gobble up the world" phobic types is the "it's all built on air; China is all foam underneath" crowd.

One fears China inordinately, the other fears China inordinately but seeks to play down her economy, culture, etc. out of reactionary fear and insecurity.

Neither extreme is warranted. The truth is somewhat more mundane -- China is a rising power in all respects, and is boon, not bane, to the world. Only ideologues can think that it is all a shell-game, and those ideologues are almost always ignorant about what they spout, and have never visited China.

An additional point to A Teacher in China -- I think you make a fair observation about the uptightness of the Chinese education system; and you do have a point well made, but I submit that the culture you witnessed is less determinative than we think it is. There is no doubt that it can be inhibitive, but as the Japanese demonstrate, rote-learning and a straightjacketed school culture does not always have a terminal effect on innovation and creativity.

They are creative in spite of it.

[...] No Comments Two events conspired to draw my interest to this subject.  I saw this interesting post referenced on Instapundit.com.  This post considers the implications of China’s government [...]

Calling the Chinese an indigenous space and nuclear power is silly. Yes, they make their own nukes and have a space program, but it's derivative. Nuclear plants here are of French design, and run by French people. The Soviets provided the bomb and missile technology. Has China done its own thing with these? Sorta. I really hope they'll be able to do the work to get to the moon, but they're about ten major steps from manned lunar flight.

How long did Zheng He's fleet sail, before he was ordered home, and the fleet and all the charts were destroyed? What has China done, nautically, in the last five centuries?

Perhaps one percent of my students exhibit creativity. I'm sure more of them are creative, but they've learned not to show it. They can memorize and recite very well. Once they're off the script, most of them are lost.

I'm a Sinophile. I love the people and the culture. If I didn't, I'd leave. It's a good thing that China's becoming more prosperous. But they'd be doing better if they didn't stifle the creative impulse. Industrious? Yes. Innovative? No.

On the original questions, China should continue to grow for a while. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit, economically. As China becomes richer, their soft power will grow, but the gap will remain for some time.

"Calling the Chinese an indigenous space and nuclear power is silly."

It isn't. The Soviets withdrew all technical assistance before the 1960s due to the Sino-Soviet split; and the Chinese didn't have a nuclear weapon then. It was only in 1964 that they had workable weapon, having made the requisite weapons technology advances themselves.

Same with the space program. Rockets, booster technology, satellite launch technology, and telemetry systems were likewise developed independently from the late 60s to 70s -- during a period when China was closed to the world.

As for Zheng He, I did say that nautical exploration was shelved for political reasons. But that wasn't the point -- the point was that China DID have a blue water navy, contrary to C. Owen Johnson's ludicrous claim that China was "behind Europe by 1200 years in that regard" (!) -- a hysterically erroneous claim that begged for correction. That China's blue water navy predated the European age of sail by a hundred years is a fact Johnson prefers to ignore.

Again, the point is not that China is currently the font of innovation. The point is that historically speaking, innovation was rife: so the monolithic culture-is-determinative answer doesn't really fly. It is a self-serving, self-congratulatory "answer" that Westerners love because it vindicates, at some conscious level (for bigots) or subsconscious level, that their culture is superior; that Asians fit the invidious "industrious but unoriginal" racial stereotype.

It is too facile an answer.

While I do not think that all cultures are "equal", I do think that claims of superiority, according to whatever metric, must fit the facts and take into account factors other than mere "culture" -- historical contingency, politics, intrigue, demographics, and geography, for example, may in fact be the more incisive factors.

Regarding "creativity", I think Japan presents the counterargument that a rote-learning culture is not necessarily determinative. Second, I don't think "1%" really means anything. Pick any high school in America and you have an even chance of finding a similar % of truly creative students. Given China's sheer size, I wouldn't be too worried. She can afford to bleed talent.

weighing in:

When you can get your facts straight, a discussion might be possible. If you are actually interested in Chinese history, I suggest you read some. Fairbank's concise history might be good place to start.

I'm sorry you couldn't tell what my point was; probably my fault for using too many polysyllabic words. I might suggest you try again when you are older.

You might also like to brush up on your terminology: you are clearly not only ignorant of Chinese history, you don't even know what "blue-water" means. So regarding your assertions about blue-water navies, it might interest you to know that the PLAN disagrees with you. For reference, you might want to start with Peoples Liberation Army Daily from around 1987 until now. Of course, if you get your hands on the classified versions (though I and the PLA rather hope you can't) you would see it spelled out even better.

Likewise, you statements about the "indigenous" Chinese space and nuclear programs are specious where they are not inaccurate. The ability to to make sub-par copies of other's technology may qualify a program as being "indigenous" but it does not speak to the point. I never said the Chinese could not make copies; they can copy things pretty well, especially when doing so under the direction of foreign engineers and managers (ask Alcatel).

So rather than continue trotting out statements that merely display your lack of understanding and what I will charitably characterize as your ignorance of basic facts, I suggest you stick to the "bigot with an axe to grind" approach combined with a healthy does of gratituous insults. You are, after all, entitled to your opinion and if you repeat "bigot" enough someone might be impressed with your sheer tenacity. But no one is likely to be impressed with your attempts at historical debate.

Although it is late to comment, I have to say that many of you all are looking at history with a dim light. It's not just in these comments, but in nearly every blog/forum that talks about this subject, most comments are really a bit too simplistic. Nowadays, if we are talking about science and technology and any area of society related for that matter, it is too complex and very broad for any particular culture or civilization, even countries to make a claim for their sake. In a sense, the organization and improvements made are just as important as the original conception. I personally don't think there is any realiable measurement use to quantify creativity for anyone.

It would be hard to argue to who did what, owe whom, and contributed this or that considering people in the deep past didn't have the luxuries such as the patent system and such that we today take for our advantage. History, not just Chinese but also Western and others, are a bit shaky(questionable) and it takes a lot of time and hard work analyzing it.

Also do not forget that many skills or crafts were lost due to trubulent times and many people from all over the world, in the past but also today, did learned--copy some may say steal from anyone of anything of percieved value.

The development of many societies differ for several obvious reasons and it is hard to compare, especially with those in the "New World and Old". However, reading back on this particular topic, in all areas of soft power, anything is possible. Other than economics and human capital, diplomacy and politics has their own quirks which maybe hard to judge, and culture can be quite subjective depending.