1

Sir John Barrow, 1st Baronet published the book "Travels in China" in 1804. In it he made poignant but quite accurate assessments about then China. I am Chinese and I am reading this book with only admiration for him. I was particularly struck by these words (CHAP. VII. Government—Laws)

it is sufficiently evident, that the heavy hand of power has completely overcome and moulded to its own shape the physical character of the people, and that their moral sentiments and actions are swayed by the opinions, and almost under the entire dominion, of the government.

How many times did that happen in history that the government "completely moulded to its own shape the physical character of the people"?

I would argue Nazi Germany was one example, Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao and North Korean under Kim family were other examples. What other example(s)?

I need to emphasize that I want to focus on the history not politics. And I prefer not discussing China. As you can see I am Chinese and I dare to say I am an expert about the history of Qing dynasty. I just want to know the history outside China here.

Note: the word "physical" seems to cause some confusion. It may mean something like 'real'/'material'/'bodily'/ even 'organic'; not as opposed to 'psychological'/'mental' etc, but in this particular sentence I will ague it means moral character. Please refer to my question What is the meaning of "physical character of of the people"? at ELU for further discussion.

--- update ---

An answer said "The quote is a historical stereotype. This makes this question unanswerable", which I disagree. It is NOT a historical stereotype. Whoever interests in part of history can take a look at Macartney Embassy first and this question is not unanswerable.

The reason I cited Nazi, Stalin and Kim family was because I believe when a man had the absolute power over his subjects, he can shape the character of his people.

I read articles (in Chinese) discuss how the rule of Golden Horde shaped the character of Russian people. I believe that is quite the case. I don't know if there is any research in English discusses about that.

Qiulang 邱朗
  • 773
  • 4
  • 14
  • 2
    Interesting question, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you sure the quote is accurate? 'Physical' means related to concrete objects:; in this context, human bodies. 'Character' is to do with the mind not the body, as are 'moral sentiments' and 'opinions'. Not sure what 'physical character' could be. Some more context from the book could help explain that one. – Ne Mo Apr 25 '22 at 13:14
  • 2
    To avoid getting dragged into debates about modern politics, I suggest comparing 1800s China to roughly contemporary societies, not Stalin or Kim. For instance, was Shogunate Japan a country where power 'moulded the people'? Was Spain under the inquisition, or Tsarist Russia? I have a feeling you'd say that early 19th century France or Italy doesn't fall into this category, but if not, why? – Ne Mo Apr 25 '22 at 13:18
  • Having nothing but that quote to go on, I'd surmise that Barrow talked to his fellow aristocrats in China, who told him about the Confucian ideal that society is governed by li - that is custom, or moral example from the ruling classes - and not by fa, which is positive written law. Ideals are relevant to understanding a society, but societies don't fully live up to their ideals, whether that ideal is Confucian, Christian, or something else. – Ne Mo Apr 25 '22 at 13:24
  • 2
    That quote had been translated/studied in Chinese for many times. Actually only recently did I find the original text. I will add more context. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 25 '22 at 13:24
  • No it was not like that at all. I guess you don't know this part of history, check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney_Embassy – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 25 '22 at 13:30
  • Also you might check my other question, https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/66806/what-were-lord-macartneys-original-words-about-chinese-under-the-qianlong-emper this question led me find Sir John Barrow's "travel in China" – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 25 '22 at 13:32
  • 2
    Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 25 '22 at 13:32
  • 7
    I'm baffled what the quote means and, consequently, even more baffled what the question is! – Mark Olson Apr 25 '22 at 16:51
  • Possibly every demagogue? Might be interesting to examine Huey Long, or even Boss Tweed. They may not be examples of the phenomenon, but examinations of the differences might prove instructive. Might be interesting to look at Mussolini and the immediate post-Mussolini era. Robespierre and Napoleon would also be interesting examples. – MCW Apr 25 '22 at 17:02
  • @MarkOlson that was why I was reluctant to add it at the first. Check my update. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 26 '22 at 01:33
  • The recent removal of "physical" is a mistake! It is no misprint, but part of the text & argument made. IMO, to better grasp this, the preceding paragraph should make that easier to understand. However, I fear that this is inherently & inextricably 'opinion-based', like in Barrow's own words, in that earlier para: "But whether this desirable state […] which in the opinion of Aristotle is the best of all possible governments, or rather by constraining and subduing the genius and habits of the people to the views and maxims of the government, is a question that may admit of fome dispute." – LаngLаngС Apr 26 '22 at 11:20
  • @NeMo Yes that was a mistake. I have added it back. It is not misprint. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 26 '22 at 11:46
  • It was also just removed from the quote! While leaving title and another occurrence intact, rendering both remaining even more confusing. @NeMo Once you've read this, please flag this comment for obsoleteness. – LаngLаngС Apr 26 '22 at 11:51
  • Hi I have update my question and you are welcome to further edit it! – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 26 '22 at 13:09
  • @LаngLаngС, jeez, relax. If you want it in so badly I won't touch it again. I still don't understand what it means though. – Ne Mo Apr 26 '22 at 15:25

1 Answers1

3

The quote refer to here is a historical stereotype. This makes this question unanswerable.

The professional study of history makes these situations very clear. Stereotyping based on subjective arguments, personal feelings and generalizations is unprofessional. But wait, there is more. In my interpretation, the correct question for you to ask would be:

"How many times in history a government got the population complete acquiescence (to the government policies)?"

This takes out the problematic 'moral character', which is a term that originated in the Romanticism and guess what, it's not a scientific term. Then, let's try to answer the question.

It is the case for this in China? It is known that there was a feeling of "social peace" in the latter years of imperial China, before the century of humiliations started to cause major social upheavals. Yet, the Öffentlichkeit (publich sphere) feeling of political appeasement in late imperial China, gives no proof for the quote to be true. The quote is a simple, non-informed stereotyped generalization made by a foreigner.

In the year 1804, there was in China, at least, a major revolt (Lotus revolt), and I'm sure many minor ones too. I'm sure Chinese experts can explain more and better than me.

The assumptions you make on the Nazi, Soviet, Maoist, and Korean historical contexts are perilously wrong. Historians strugle to teach the inherent diversity and nuances on events of the past, even the most extreme ones. You feel those historical contextes are related to the chinese one only because you have a stereotyped understanding about them. This is only because the wording of the quotation is heavily stereotyping. No historian would say nazi or soviet gov's opinions "swayed" people's "moral sentiments and actions" ever. Nazis and soviets openly used direct, heavy and constant, modern repression tactics upon their populations, which is clearly not the case for 19th century China.

James
  • 2,655
  • 6
  • 16
  • Well, I am a Chinese expert and I can tell those judgement was NOT historical stereotype and you assessment about China is wrong. But thanks for answering my question. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 27 '22 at 02:21
  • 2
    The statement is clearly a poetic generalization of the status of the public sphere. I do not see historical science being done here, but literature. – James Apr 27 '22 at 07:39
  • If you read the whole book and also know that part of history, I believe you will have a second opinion. But like I said in my updated question. I prefer not discussing China here. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 27 '22 at 07:44
  • 3
    Ok, I understand. Then, you would need to cite relevant, specific points in your question, so it is not a generalization anymore. If you make an analysis of your statement (explain bit by bit why was so), then you will be able to compare to situations elsewhere outside China. About the 20th century authoritarian regimes you cite, I must tell you can't compare with those. Those regimes made use of many innovations (propaganda, social control, extreme repression) that they cannot be compared with anything that happened previously. – James Apr 27 '22 at 07:55
  • I disagree with "they cannot be compared with anything that happened previously." Why not ? I don't know about English, but the use of the term authoritarian regimes in Chinese only flourishes in recent decades, before that we had other term although they basically had the same meaning. When a man/king had an absolute power he can shape the character of the people. I (my question) want to know how many times did that happen in history. – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 28 '22 at 03:25
  • An emperor can have nominal absolute power, but no means to enforce it. Tech availability makes things very different in each context. Yeah, absolutism means absolutism, but tech development stage determines very different results when you dive deep into details. This is why XX century Europe is so different from any other historical context, and cannot be compared to anything previous, in a serious manner. No chinese emperor had gas chambers, modern loudspeakers, or cheap mass printed daily press. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin did (or could if wanted). – James Apr 28 '22 at 09:55
  • Thank you for spending time and energy in my question. But I need to tell you that I don't intend to further discuss with you. One of reasons is I, consider myself an expert of Qing dynasty and a native Chinese of course feel amused and a bit insulted to told by other that it is historical stereotype and even gave me a link to the explanation of what stereotype is. BTW, if you are really interested in that part of history you can study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney_Embassy first – Qiulang 邱朗 Apr 28 '22 at 14:55