hist.g7.s.cul.ming_qing_china_zheng_he_macartney
Analyze MING AND QING CHINA 1368-1796 — Ming founding 1368, Zheng He voyages 1405-1433 PRECEDING Columbus by 87 years, Ming print culture, Manchu Qing conquest 1644, Kangxi/Qianlong reigns, and the 1793 Macartney Mission — refusing 'Chinese isolation' Eurocentric framing
Examine Ming and Qing China as global early-modern formation. Ming founding 1368 (Hongwu) + Yongle r.1402-1424 + Zheng He SEVEN voyages 1405-1433 (carryover from G7-Fall deepened) — treasure ships 400-450 feet vs. Santa María ~62 feet; voyages reached Hormuz + Mecca + East Africa Malindi + Mogadishu; refusal of 'Ming isolationism' framing — 1433 Ming withdrawal was strategic Confucian-bureaucratic decision NOT incapacity (Brook 2010 + Dreyer 2007); Ming print culture flourishing (Brook 1998 'Confusions of Pleasure' + Berry 2006 parallel for Japan) — woodblock printing of Confucian classics + Chinese novels Journey to the West + Water Margin + Dream of Red Chamber + private libraries + commercial publishers; Ming Vermeer's Hat 2008 silver-flow from Potosí to Ming China 1500-1640 (Spence + Brook) — Ming integrated into Pacific economy via Manila Galleon 1565-1815 carrying Mexican silver to Asia; 1644 Manchu Qing conquest — Manchu people from northeast Manchuria + Eight Banners system + Manchu-Han bilingual administration; Kangxi r.1661-1722 + Qianlong r.1735-1796 — last great absolute monarchs of the early-modern world; 1793 Lord Macartney mission to Qianlong — Qianlong's famous edict to George III refusing trade liberalization is named as evidence of 18th-century Chinese self-confidence NOT 'isolationism' per Spence 1990 + Wills 2012.
- Construct a SIX-FORMATION SIMULTANEOUS chronology of the Early-Modern World 1450-1750 CE placing Italian Renaissance, Mughal India, Ming/Qing China, Songhai West Africa, Ottoman Empire, Tokugawa Japan on one timeline — refusing the Eurocentric 'Renaissance/Age of Discovery' single-narrative framing
-
hist.g7.f.cul.tang_song_innovations_print_compass
(not yet loaded)
-
hist.g8.f.civ.opium_wars_china
(not yet loaded)
- Believing Ming and Qing China were 'isolationist' — refuted by Brook + Spence: Ming Manila Galleon trade integrated Ming into Pacific economy 1565-1815; Qing trade through Canton continuous; Macartney refusal 1793 was strategic, not isolationist
- Believing Zheng He's voyages 'failed' — refuted by Dreyer 2007: voyages were tactical-political successes; 1433 withdrawal was Confucian-bureaucratic choice, not failure
- Believing the Ming 'fell because of decadence' — refuted: silver-supply crisis (Potosí mines disrupted by Japanese piracy + Spanish policy) + climate (Little Ice Age agricultural failure) + Manchu military pressure + peasant rebellions ALL interacted
- Believing Macartney's 'kowtow refusal' caused Britain to attack China — refuted: Macartney 1793 + Opium War 1839-1842 are 46 years apart; the cause was opium-trade economics not 1793 protocol