Is it true that while China invented paper and gunpowder, it was Western Civilization that first put them to use?
And does that show Western Civilization to be superior?
Housekeeping. First, some people tell me that they have to check their spam filters to find S.T.A.F.I. If you miss an issue, please check your spam filter and label it, not spam. Second, if you don’t wish to receive this publication, please quietly unsubscribe. If you are receiving this by email, then you are already a free subscriber. Third, for the first three months, everything I write here will be available free of charge. When that changes, if it changes, you will not be charged unless you ask to become a paid subscriber, but you may stop receiving some of these writings if you don’t. Fourth, please help me build up my membership. Share these writings in places where people would find them interesting and tell your friends.
Recently a friend, sent me this quote. It came from an argument in a miniature wargaming forum where people were discussing ancient Rome and Carthage.
“It is of course correct to point out that the Mediterranean made cultural interaction relatively easy, and that does indeed account for some of the West's dominance. Sub-Saharan Africa, in contrast, is filled with barriers to inter-communication, and that is a big reason it has always been and remains backwards.
But there's far more to it. The Chinese invented paper and gunpowder, and used them to celebrate New Years with firecrackers. The West took their ideas and made the printing press and artillery.
And Mediterranean man was replaced by Atlantic man.
Of course Western Civilization is superior; we invented the idea of equality.”
My friend’s a retired museum curator. His knowledge of local and American history is outstanding, However, he recognizes that his Chinese history is a bit weak, and from time to time asks me questions about things he sees that interest him.
In this case his request was simple. He just wondered how I would respond to this.
Therefore . . .
The author of the piece makes a few assertions. I have seen them before.
They seem to be:
1. The Chinese invented paper, but never printing. Because the West invented printing and the Chinese did not, Western civilization was and is superior.
2. The Chinese invented gunpowder, but never used it for anything serious and never applied gunpowder to use in artillery. Because the West invented gunpowder artillery and the Chinese did not, Western civilization was and is superior.
3. The west is superior, because they invented the idea of equality.
Quite simply, all three of these ideas are wrong. Just plain, factually wrong.
1. The Chinese invented both paper and printing long before the West did. In fact, the oldest known printed book ever is a Buddhist religious text printed in 868 A.D. during the Tang Dynasty.
See:
Daley, Jason. “Five Things to Know About the Diamond Sutra, the World’s Oldest Dated Printed Book.” Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian Instituion. May 11, 2016. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/Five-things-to-know-about-diamond-sutra-worlds-oldest-dated-printed-book-180959052/
There are, of course, many other good resources on the subject of the history of printing, including a good Wikipedia page. Despite its faults, it needs to be said that Wikipedia is often a valuable resource that can, if nothing else, give leads that can then be checked through more static, less malleable sources.
2. The Chinese invented gunpowder weapons long before the West.
For an introduction, please see:
“Technological Advances during the Song, Gunpowder. China in 1000 CE, The Most Advanced Society in the World.” AFE Song Dynasty in China. Asia for Educators, Columbia University. 2024. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/songdynasty-module/tech-gunpowder.html
F,Y.I., the Song dynasty, sometimes spelled Sung dynasty, lasted from 960-1279 A.D. and ended when the Mongols, gunpowder weapons or no, conquered China.1
3. The argument that the West believed in equality is flawed as well.
Several books have been written and long social struggles and ensued and are still taking place because the West has not believed in equality.
For this one, of course, there are virtually endless sources that could be cited. Let’s start with an interesting book.
Haller, John S. “Outcasts from Evolution, Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900.” Carbondale OL: Southern Illinois University Press. 1995.
This heavily footnoted, carefully sourced book, written by a medical historian, is a fascinating introduction to the way many scientists of the 19th Century saw issues of race, racial differences, and the inherent inferiority of many races when compared to their own, White race and the sort of papers arguing for inherent racial inequality during that time.
Or we could begin with a good quality documentary on Eugenics from the Public Broadcasting System. Although this documentary is available on both DVD and on-line (and often found in or available through interlibrary loan through public libraries), I am going to share the on-line version for ease or access.
“The Eugenics Crusade: Full Documentary: American Experience: PBS.” PBS American Experience. WGBH Foundation. YouTube, October 16, 2018.
.
Described as:
“Uncover the shocking history of the early 20th-century campaign to breed a “better” American race.
THE EUGENICS CRUSADE tells the story of the unlikely—and largely unknown—project to breed a better American race, tracing the rise of a movement that turned a scientific theory of heredity into a powerful instrument of social control. Populated by figures both celebrated and obscure, it is an often revelatory portrait of an America at once strange and eerily familiar.”
I really liked this documentary. Not only did it capture what wrong with the implementation of the so-called “science of eugenics,” but it also captured the idealism and the enthusiastic optimism that drove it, especially in its early days. Believers and advocates of the term fervently believed that eugenics was going to improve the human race and the human condition, end social problems like poverty and alcoholism, and make the world a much better place. For more details on this documentary, see the PBS American Experience website. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/eugenics-crusade/
(Some day, I hope to write a bit about how the so-called “science of eugenics” and its optimistic goals were embraced and implemented in China. If you want to see it, you know what to do. Support this project, subscribe, and share the pieces I write. An audience for this writing is out there. I just need to find them, and they need to find me.)
So, we’ve disproven the original poster’s statements completely. For the record, I don’t know the original poster. I have made no effort to reach out to him. I have not tried to learn his name, nor have I tried to share his identity. I think I know the type, and have heard similar statements before. In fact, it’s because I see him as “a type,” that I think the statements are worth sharing.
Let’s ask, “Was the statement racist?” and “What’s the best way to respond to it?”
Racism is a strong word, its use injects emotion into interactions and situations, and it needs to be used carefully. So, while as the original poster made several statements that were both insulting to the Chinese, and did so to advocate that the West was superior, and the statements were untrue, then, of course, he is by definition “racist.”
On the other hand, he, I am sure, did not know the statements were false, and, if I know the type, would eagerly welcome the chance to argue that he was not being racist and the facts were on his side. (Um, even if they weren’t.) It’s most certainly not helpful to begin an argument with such a person by asserting they are being racist, until you are sure you have the facts behind you to prove that their evidence is lacking. Otherwise, they have great fun arguing, and tend to walk away doubly convinced that they are right and might even convince others along the way.
So, how to respond? In my opinion, just like this. Analyze their arguments, sort them, evaluate them impartially, and then share the results with open minded people who are genuinely interested in knowing the truth of the statements.
I have been asked to write a piece on why the spelling of Chinese words is inconsistent and varies in English. It’s on the list of upcoming projects.