China has two (2) mentions within the last 900 years. The great famine and COVID-19.
A third one (BRI 2013) is buried under a mention of the original Silk Roads in 100 BCE.
People's Republic founding is omitted, despite being the first post-colonial/indigenous "superstate". It will certainly be at least as historically consequential as the founding of the USA. No mention of PRC eradicating extreme poverty nor surpassing the USA in GDP PPP.
Reading the timeline, you get the sense that all recent human progress is occurring in the West and the West alone is positioned to address global issues. Which is a very distorted view.
> China has two (2) mentions within the last 900 years.
That is certainly absurd! I hadn't looked past about 5,000 yrs ago.
> the first post-colonial/indigenous "superstate"
I've read a good amount of Chinese history and other works, including by Chinese authors (translated), and I haven't heard that idea so I am interested in learning a bit:
Who uses the term? Historians? Political scientists? The CCP? Is it new?
What do you meant by "superstate"? A major power?
Post-colonial: The US, Canada, etc. are post-colonial, former British colonies. If you mean, after the West's period of colonization post-Industrial Revolution, what about India, which was founded a few years before? Japan, which was itself a colonial power (with some horrible consequences)? The post-WWI Middle East?
Finally, I'm not quite sure how 'indigenous' applies. China has been a collection of cultures, enough so that holding it together has always preoccupied whoever was in power. My impression is that it is more like Europe in that sense, including varying local languages, than the US (though different than both).
All those questions don't make it wrong; they are merely what I don't understand.
> It will certainly be at least as historically consequential as the founding of the USA. No mention of PRC eradicating extreme poverty nor surpassing the USA in GDP PPP.
> Reading the timeline, you get the sense that all recent human progress is occurring in the West and the West alone is positioned to address global issues. Which is a very distorted view.
Isn't this as Sino-centric as the timeline is Western-centric? If we know such approaches are factually distorting (you just made a good point about it), and we know also that nationalistic competition leads to catastrophe (WWII being a prominent example), why take them? Do you want to intentionally make the same mistakes as the timeline?
I hope the people of China do great things - not only for themselves, but for the world, and that they have freedom to live their lives as they choose, with health and prosperity. Do better than the colonial powers.
> What do you meant by "superstate"? A major power?
I don't know. This is the term used by the OP, hence quotes. If USA is a "superstate" then PRC is one as well.
> Finally, I'm not quite sure how 'indigenous' applies.
China is primarily populated by the same peoples that have lived there for millennia. There was no mass ethnic cleansing as took place in the Americas/Australia/etc.
> Isn't this as Sino-centric as the timeline is Western-centric?
Is it Sino-centric to have a balanced view of human history?
I regret investing my time in trying to understand you when you don't even bother to know what you are saying. Apparently all you have to say is, 'China is better than the West'. Just post that; the rest is BS.
There's much more we can do in the world, but not through ignorance and outrage. You can see right here that we can learn nothing from it, gain no ground.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue at this point. It appears I succinctly addressed all your points and you have no rebuttle except ad hominem.
