Chapter 1

The fundamental reason for China's backwardness in modern times is that we have lost the Confucian and Taoist spirit, not because of its promotion. This loss was caused by the Manchu Qing Dynasty. To maintain their rule, the Qing Dynasty went to great lengths to destroy China's inherent culture, thought, and technology, and implanted ignorance and numbness into our nation. Their methods were so sophisticated as to be unimaginable. As a result, even today, hundreds of years later, we still stubbornly believe that backwardness comes from culture, not the Qing Dynasty. Confucius has become a scapegoat for the Qing. What a tragedy.

We need to restore the true face of Chinese culture. We need to find the authentic Chinese culture that can make us wise, far-sighted, and proud, not the distorted versions.

Here is a specific analysis: Let's first review the situations at the end of the Ming and Qing Dynasties.

In the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), Macau fell into chaos. County Magistrate Cai Shanji learned of this and went to Macau alone to quell the unrest. Afterward, he formulated the "Ten Rules for Governing Macau," severely punishing law-breaking Portuguese. If Portuguese committed crimes, they could be dealt with by the Portuguese themselves. If it involved Chinese, they had to be tried by Chinese officials. Later, Portuguese were often sent to Guangzhou for trial and punishment.

In 1662, Zheng Chenggong defeated the Dutch and reclaimed Taiwan, which is not worth repeating.

Some people are dismissive: Portugal and the Netherlands were just small countries. Why not talk about Britain and France? Because in the 16th and 17th centuries, Portugal and the Netherlands were the superpowers of the Western maritime world. Britain's Industrial Revolution did not begin until the 18th century.

These two events, perhaps not comprehensive, can still reflect the attitude and capabilities of the Ming Dynasty towards Western powers.

The Qing Dynasty is not worth mentioning. Let's review the unequal treaties signed by the Qing Dynasty. ...

Several wars have contributed all the economic achievements of thousands of years of China to others. How could we not be poor?

A single county magistrate and a local force of the Ming Dynasty could subdue Western powers. The Qing Dynasty, with the strength of the entire country, suffered defeat after defeat. The same nation, roughly the same territory, different governments, led to completely different outcomes. One can't help but ask: Why was the gap between the Qing and Ming governments so great?

Let's look at the situation before the Opium War.

1. National strength: During the Daoguang era, the Qing Dynasty had a population of 400 million, with a GDP accounting for about 30% of the world's total, clearly a major Eastern power. At the time, Britain had not yet become a "global empire," with a GDP accounting for about 5% of the world's total.

2. Military: The British had fewer troops, while the Qing had more; the British were far from home, while the Qing were fighting on their own soil.

3. Troop strength: In June 1840, the British invasion force led by George Elliot numbered only about 4,000 men, with over 40 warships.

4. Weapons: At the time, the British military used steam engines in their navy, but many were still sailing ships; the army used rear-loading firearms and artillery, which were more advanced than those of the Qing, but not as much as later disparities.

There are many historical examples of the weak defeating the strong. The Qing Dynasty had relatively good objective conditions and could have won, but they lost. What was the root cause? Don't say textbooks.

China led the world for thousands of years, but suddenly fell behind, and fell behind terribly. Isn't this perplexing? If you are interested, let's explore together. Historical problems must be sought in history.

Let's understand the truth about the Kangxi-Qianlong Prosperity.

There is not much to say about the period before Kangxi, except for the killings. Let's start with Kangxi.

Kangxi was an extraordinary person: he cleverly captured Aobai, pacified the Three Feudatories, reclaimed Taiwan, fought in Yaksa, defeated Galdan, governed the Yellow and Huai Rivers, and studied modern science. At first glance, he had great military achievements and remarkable accomplishments, appearing to be a great ruler. Is that really the case?

Who decides whether a ruler is great? What is the standard for measuring a ruler? If the standard is not chosen well, the result will be problematic. I believe that a ruler's greatness should be judged by their contributions to the nation and the people, not by their personal abilities.

Let's analyze Kangxi's major deeds one by one to understand the truth.

Cleverly capturing Aobai shows that Kangxi was capable. However, this has nothing to do with greatness. It was merely an internal power struggle within the Qing government, changing only the actual leader of the country. This was a battle for Kangxi's own interests, not for the nation or the people, and had little to do with the common people.

Pacifying the Three Feudatories was also to maintain imperial power. Kangxi and Wu Sangui fought for supremacy, leading to a major conflict. The war was initiated by Kangxi. (A warlord?) This was a power struggle between local and central governments, with no contribution to the nation. Many civilians suffered and lost their lives during the war. Kangxi ultimately won because his methods were more sophisticated than Wu Sangui's, showing his capability. Since it did not involve contributions, it has nothing to do with greatness. Some might say: At least Kangxi maintained territorial integrity, doesn't that count as a contribution? Good question, I appreciate it. I still have to say: This has nothing to do with greatness. I am not being stubborn or biased. Think about it: If Wu Sangui had won, would he have allowed division? Of course not. In other words, regardless of who won, the territory would remain intact, with no possibility of division. Therefore, your view is not valid. This is fundamentally different from Russia's division of Xinjiang.

The Qing Dynasty's recovery of Taiwan is something I really don't want to talk about. The situation at the time was very different from now.

Next is the Battle of雅克萨. This battle occurred during the Kangxi era, when the Qing government was at its strongest. The Russian forces numbered only about 800, and they were on a long expedition with limited ammunition and food. The scale and intensity of the battle were far from what people imagine. The Qing forces, several times larger and well-equipped, attacked both by land and sea, and it took them half a year to conclude the battle. What is there to be proud of in such a battle (which hardly qualifies as a war)? Humph! In the 28th year of Kangxi (1689), the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk was signed, ceding 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberian land to Russia in exchange for a century of peace. This is the Kangxi and the Battle of雅克萨 that people are so proud of. I wonder why historians have promoted this so much, misleading people. Could this be the work of so-called literati? Please don't deceive yourselves.

The Kangxi and Qianlong Dynasties carried out a genocide against the Oirat Mongols in the northern desert, a cruelty rarely seen, which I will not elaborate on.

The Yellow and Huai Rivers would occasionally cause problems every few years. Which dynasty did not govern them? When it was their turn, they simply governed them. This is a duty, and cannot be associated with greatness. During the reign of the Wanli Emperor, who did not attend court for 30 years, the Yellow and Huai River floods were also managed, and managed well. Did you know that? So, some things are not as people think. Use your own brain; don't let others manipulate you.