2007-11-21, 08:43 | Link #21 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
As a side note, Indians are, based on their percentage of the world's population, one of the most underrepresented groups in anime. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2007-11-21, 10:26 | Link #22 | |||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
"None of the Asian powers would even think of having Japan join them so the only other option would be the US if Japan wants to survive." So I simply pointed out, that in 00's world, its China that is picking the alliances, not anyone else. Had this been the real world, India would feel very comfortable in an alliance with Japan. In fact, that is also happening right now, especially since India and China simply does not get along, at all! Quote:
No, Marina does not look Middle-Eastern. Her character design reminds me of a stereotypical Chinese in anime. Quote:
Could have fooled me, they sure don't look the part. Although my question is still not answered in the anime, what part do Indians play? Waiters-for-hire in stations? What? - Tak (Will the real Raj Patel please stand up?) |
|||
2007-11-21, 12:17 | Link #23 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Off-topic: Quote:
Marina is likely Persian, and Persians are an Aryan people whereas the Middle East is ususally associated with Arabs who are a Semetic people. I don't really think that her appearance is too out of place (besides, stereotypical anime Chinese don't look all that much like real Chinese).
__________________
|
|||
2007-11-21, 12:45 | Link #24 | |||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nonetheless, in one scene, I swear I saw Constantinople, so I am not totally sure if she is Persian. Even if that was the case, then 00 is taking a huge leap in regards to Islamic fundamentalism. Honestly, do you think any Middle-Eastern/Islamic country/region would allow a woman to roam across the world making her own diplomacy while dressing in a manner that would be an affront to Islamic sensitivities? Of course, stereotypical anime Chinese does not look Chinese, then again, neither do anime Japanese. But in most cases, we can pretty much tell who is supposed to be what. - Tak |
|||
2007-11-21, 16:02 | Link #25 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Of course, the split remains to be explained. Quote:
Quote:
It's not like they've always been that religious, or always will be. |
|||
2007-11-21, 16:13 | Link #26 | ||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
Quote:
And when you say monarchy, exactly which Middle-Eastern country are you referring to? Clearly we have not yet established that Marina is Persian, Turkish or a member of another Middle-Eastern ethnicity. - Tak |
||
2007-11-21, 17:06 | Link #27 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Off-topic: Quote:
Quote:
There's lots of handwaving going on to have the world set up the way it is in Gundam 00, but that sort of goes with the territory. Besides, it's hardly out of place for a Gundam show.
__________________
|
|||||
2007-11-21, 17:53 | Link #28 |
tsun tsun lover
|
In our current political climate, Korea, India are more aligned with the US. However, given that it's probably much, much cheaper to get energy from the HRL space elevator, and given that China/Russia would probably require more assistance constructing the space elevator (thus giving minor players much more leverage), I can see how the HRL formed.
This whole distrust of China and belief that it wants to become hegemon seems to implicitly ignore the fact that the Chinese are usually unwilling to commit to armed conflict, especially on a large scale. Ever since the whole 'people's war' doctrine got shown to be laughable in the Sino-Vietnamese conflict, China has realised the futility of such wide ranging 'total war' strategies, and has instead focussed on deterrent power (nuclear) and limited, high tech warfare. The likelihood that any such high tech conflict can actually succeed is thrown into doubt by the US foray into Iraq. Imagine having to pacify India, the world's second most populous nation! |
2007-11-21, 18:26 | Link #29 |
As I make you stop, think
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Europe - The Netherlands
Age: 34
|
kinda off topic but...What happened to Global warming? 300 years from now and it's not an issue?
oww and btw, what happened to our cannabis leaf island? It's not on the map!?!
__________________
|
2007-11-21, 19:04 | Link #30 | |||||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
Quote:
00 takes the assumption that China had taken an aggressive political stance, that is all. Quote:
China went into Vietnam with the explicit agenda of displaying its defiance to Moscow, not to conquer the South-Asian country. We know they achieved at least that. There is no evidence to suggest that China ever wanted to totally dominate the region. Please also note that China commenced the invasion just as the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance expired. Quote:
Besides, historically, China had been the world's sole superpower for a very, very long time. Ever since that title is robbed from them, you don't think they will get pissed? I goto China these days, and very often, I am reminded of the Opium Wars as well as unfair treaties that European countries forced upon China during the late 18th ~ 19th century. Then there is the whole nationalistic sentiment that engulfs China, which not even the CCP can do much to control. Quote:
- Tak Last edited by Tak; 2007-11-21 at 19:24. |
|||||
2007-11-21, 19:05 | Link #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Or... Maybe the whole reason why the world's only just run out of fossil fuels is that they managed to reduce usage enough to mean reserves lasted a lot longer than otherwise. But then, where's either nuclear power or lots of renewable energy? Or maybe there was some serious global warming in late 21st and 22nd centuries but it's now abated somewhat and no longer considered worth mentioning? Still, I do wonder why the AEU elevator port is out at sea. Seems like worst place to put it (what with hurricanes etc...) |
|
2007-11-21, 19:54 | Link #32 | |
Anime Hobbyist
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Quote:
And Japanese conflicts and foreign policy issues have been lingering for around 300 years to modern day. Another 300 years will be like another day in history. They will not simply forget and make nice immediately. As for the Asian alliance, I agree India and Korea most definitely would not just jump in on a Chinese bandwagon. If anything, they'd mostly join Union for their American/Western style economies they're running. I actually expect Japan to join up instead of siding with some Russo/Chinese alliance they never were friendly to. |
|
2007-11-21, 20:23 | Link #33 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
As I suggested in the past, since the building of the Elevators is extremely energy intensive, fission power was probably what kept the construction-effort going. That alone could accelerate the consumption of fission materials, especially since the day-to-day usage of electricity by civilians in these periods would have to be from fission too. Only a small percentage of current electricity generation is from nuclear power plants, so if that ratio was to increase dramatically the amount of fissionable materials won't last long either.
__________________
|
2007-11-21, 20:39 | Link #34 | |
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
So I can imagine Koreans being bitter about having to be stuck between two overwhelming powers. Although most Asian countries still retain the usage of Chinese characters to a degree. After all, Northern Chinese at the time must have been like Latin to Western Europe. On the second part of your discussion, we have noted the degree of plausibility of India, Korea, Japan and Taiwan jumping on the Chinese bandwagon, and it appears only Japan prevailed in seceding from it. Although the question remains, how did Japan do it? After all, not only is Japan on China's hate list, but strategically speaking, they are actually quite valuable. Unfortunately, I have yet to see an explanation. - Tak (And I am certain most Indians retained their previous occupations before joining the League, which is none other than tech-support itself! No wonder we don't see them on screen that often, they need to get out more! Har!) |
|
2007-11-21, 21:04 | Link #35 |
Anime Hobbyist
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
As for Korea, it wasn't exactly subjugation because in the ancient Korean dynasties, it really was a bit of an alliance.
Remember that in the Japanese invasion of Korea, it was the Chinese that lent their help to drive them out. And the result wasn't an occupied Korea. Chinese forces went back to their empire. So I doubt it was entirely a hostile thing. Actually, it really was a sort of a standoff (Zero sum game anyone? Ancient Korean kingdoms were pretty powerful entities. I doubt they'd risk an open war just for subjugation). As for Japan not joining the alliance, I think it's most likely that a non-military convention continued into the future and Japan may have become a sort of a special economic zone (durr. referring to the way it was described). And I wonder about their strategic importance compared to let's say: Switzerland, another nation that is a bit more successful in maintaining a relatively neutral stance. Perhaps that is where they're going with Japan there. If there was any singular strategic nation in Eastern Asia right now, it has to be South Korea due to its massive military and vicinity towards Taiwan and Japan. It's ironic since Korea used to be a strategic landmass for millenniums. As for economic pull, I don't see why Japan wouldn't have joined the Union other than Gundam 00 writers wanting to put it in a special category as a nation. |
2007-11-21, 21:29 | Link #36 | |||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
During the course of the war, Korea was never able to summon an army larger than 30,000 men, and with the Japanese closing onto China's front-yard (Manchuria), obviously the Ming Dynasty couldn't just sit there and wait for the whole thing to be over. The last thing the Chinese wanted was to have somebody violating their northern boarders. Chinese foreign policy during the time take that possibility very seriously, and with wars against the Mongols still in process, the Chinese were simply not in the mood for an additional enemy, wherever they came from. Otherwise, initially, the Ming Dynasty was more willing to wait it out, hoping the Koreans and Japanese armies to exhaust themselves. As for your claim on how ancient Korean kingdoms were supposedly strong and unified, let me remind you that Korea was subjugated during the times of China's Han Dynasty, the Three Kingdoms, the Tang Dynasty, the Song Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty and later the Qing Dynasty. When Korea was able to maintain its autonomy, it was also during a time when China was in chaos. The Koreans prevailed during the Sui Dynasty exactly because it was entering the last stages of its existence, as it was engaged in a series of wars that would later be replaced by a vastly more powerful Tang Dynasty. The Koreans never made much military expeditions into the mainland, and for a good reason. They know they can't expect to win. Quote:
Quote:
How much can the SK Army do when an emergency occurs remain to be seen. Although I highly doubt it can take much punishment once China decides to join the fray. - Tak |
|||
2007-11-21, 21:43 | Link #37 |
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 37
|
A thing: If you don't know much about Northeast Asian history, watch what you say. I'll leave it at that.
I'll also say this: It isn't for nothing that Korean Dynasties lasted for over 500 years, while Chinese ones broke down much faster. Also, the current PRC can't handle a limited war on Manchuria unless they bring out the nukes. |
2007-11-21, 21:56 | Link #38 |
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
As a Korean, you obviously have your own perspective while the Chinese have theirs. You can claim your case, but so can they. So don't tell people that they know nothing, for Chinese people can easily say the same things to you.
Chinese dynasties do not break down much faster. Most good ones would last 400 years or more. The Shang Dynasty of China lasted more than 800 years. As for the last part of your statement, I can just imagine some Chinese person walking up to you and say "If you don't know much about current Chinese affairs, watch what you say. I'll leave it at that." But what the heck, I am not Chinese - Tak (Besides, guess who got Korea's back covered all these years? The last time Korea wanted evidence of their failure, it came through China's front-yard carrying a Mongol yak) |
2007-11-21, 22:24 | Link #39 |
tsun tsun lover
|
The Chinese military doctrine right up until the 70s was one of large scale manouvre and 'human-wave' type attacks as seen in Korea in the 50's. What worked in one battlefield failed in Vietnam because the Vietnamese employed asymmetric warfare.
Much of the technology employed in S-V was Korean Warfare era stuff, and the Chinese were outgunned by the VA. Chinese military modernization began in the 80s, not the 90s, after 1979. Simply stating that the Chinese "are highly competitive" and "have an agenda" simply attaches labels that can be placed on any self interested nation: It is their methods of attaining success, not their desire for it that we are interested in. Blue Water navies are a sign of world power, not of aggression. Otherwise the USA would be the greatest aggressor of all. Furthermore the accusation that China will get "very pissed" about its "global leadership" is thoroughly flawed: 1. The British, French powers should be equally annoyed at their decline 2. What about the Japanese? Being forced to lose their imperial aspirations... do the majority of Japanese citizens HATE the US for forcing them to go to war in WW2 by cutting crude oil supplies and enforcing a trade embargo on a nation made destitute by the Great Depression? Assumptions that a nation will be "annoyed" because they lose their power tend to reflect the current superpower's fear of being overtaken and are purely speculative in that they apply broad generalizations to something as complicated and intricate as foreign policy. Chinese leadership (and Asian leadership in general) is usually rather subtle and passive. Look at Tokugawa Era Japan, Qing Dynasty China... stability was the key. Hirohito's Japan and the Meiji Era were exceptions to the rule as Japan adopted quintessentially European strategic policies (such as the desire for colonies). China Looks to Africa as a boon for its industrialization. 200 Years ago, the way these resources were exploited was through colonialism. Today, it is through diplomacy. As abhorrent as China's non interventionism is, it isn't motivated by a desire to "take over" Africa so much as to ensure continued access to raw materials. Over their history China has showed little of the aggressive expansion of many other nations. Confucianism is the key to this, and confucian values of stable government and judicious rule is anathema to the instability wrought by warfare. Why else do you think the Cultural Revolution attempted to do away with the 'old' (with so little success I might add?") Regarding the Nationalist sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm an Australian national who immigrated from China when I was 3. When the anti-Japanese riots occurred in recent years I was disgusted because this sort've thing happened in Weimar Germany and Imperial Japan and lead down the road to destruction. However, Chinese nationalism has always been centred not on "destroying the other" but on ensuring that China is safe. That is why Taiwan is viewed as such an important issue. it is purely reactionary as opposed to Bethman Hollweg's "sonderweg" (special path, probably spelt wrongly) in Germany in the 1890s (which helped fracture European relations and lead to WW1) or Japan's militarist inculcation of its populace in the Showa restoration Chinese Nationalism is also (to be honest) rather facile in that it isn't exactly deep seated. "Boycotts" of Japanese goods usually don't end up occurring to any major extent... Why? Because you underestimate a population's desire for wealth and affluence. The chinese have been poorly led and managed over the 20th century. With capitalism and the ability to manage their own lives (to an extent), many people truly care more for their own wealth than for the nation. Apathy is rampant and shows of nationalism for all we know have no depth. Simply implying that China has the intent to dominate is laughable because of the enormous problems of implementation. Are you seriously suggesting China somehow subjugated India and kept them willingly within the HRL for all this time? Nationalism of any kind whether it be aggressive or latent would prevent any nation today from succeeding in such an enormous venture. My theory is that nations banded together because of MUTUAL difficulties, difficulties that would drive adversaries to cooperate. Russia is only aligned with China today because of the US. Is it simply too difficult to imagine that Russia, China and India would pool their resources together and integrate in such a way as to ensure that they remained a global force, albeit united?Historical Precedents for this are rife. |
2007-11-21, 22:29 | Link #40 | |
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 37
|
Quote:
China cannot mobilize its entire forces to Manchuria in a few days, and their air force is too weak to handle Korea ATM. If North Korea wasn't an issue, the China would break with trying to have enough forces to counter Korea AND Taiwan. Of course, in the future, things might change, but thinking Korea was always a weak country, kowtowing to the "Middle" Kingdom is one-sided propaganda. |
|
|
|