China is very naturally a very feudal country, notwithstanding the communist* cloak it is exhibiting with so much nonchalance. The language would be extremely feudal. With contempt for the working class; and with supreme indifference to the comfort of everyone other than the ruling bureaucracy, life would be just a reflection of ancient feudal times.

One may see the well-dressed young men and women, who adorn the capital cities, and the modern commercial cities of China. However the millions who remain nameless and possibly faceless, may be living a life of extreme subjugation. The power that subjugates them won’t be seen in the rulebooks. For they exist in the stranglehold inside the language codes.

It needs to be said that persons from English-speaking countries, who do not understand the niceties of the Chinese language would not feel or understand the power of the feudal words; and the intangible mental chain they tie on a person’s mind and personality. For the foreigner, the layman would be seen to function in a sort of mechanical perfection and harmony, with no external force or command to be seen or heard. They would miss the unseen omnipotence that fill the air. They would remain in blissful ignorance of what is the real social motivating factor in China.

The regal authority of Ghengis Khan, which ran throughout China in the ancient times would be based on the solid strength of the intangible chain that existed in the language. This place each person in the structure, in tight positions with little manoeuvrability from the general dictates.

China is a communist country and hence it is a presumed classless society. However I would contend that the moment a person from the English West, entered into China, what would impress him most would be the existence of solid social classes. It would be headed by the senior positions of bureaucracy. A general air of contempt for all service-oriented careers would be very much evident. Communism would exist as a farce, as in many other similar places, all round the world. Here I must emphasise that I do concede to the general sincerity of the communist revolutionaries in all places where the language is feudal. Yet, they also ultimately fall into the trap of the same feudal language social structure.

In this context, one may even rethink about the Opium Wars* that paved the way for British supremacy over China. Contempt for the merchant class was very much in exhibition among the official class of China at that time. This attitude will still be in evidence over there. The feudal language would give a feeling of supreme omnipotence and of megalomania, which are common afflictions that affect all bureaucrats when they are able to communicate with the common class, in a feudal language. The language lends a feeling of supreme capabilities.

It is this attitude that led to the war. This could have been avoided if the bureaucrats were living in conditions that are more down-to-earth. They had the same attitude Napoleon also exhibited for the benefit of his followers. That Britain was a nation of shopkeepers.

When the English came for trade, the higher officials did not allow them to approach them without exhibiting exquisite actions and poses of servitude. The English merchants were expected to show all inclinations of homage as shown by native merchants, which they invariably declined to do. Even the English ambassadors were treated as mere tribute bearers and they were also expected to perform the Kowtow * or the nine prostrations, before the Emperor. By understanding the underlying codes inside the English language, one can very well expect they would not do this. (Actually, this aspect of the English personality, that they are second to none, anywhere in the world, is what gives them the edge, over others). The Chinese feudal leaders and Bureaucrats till the very end were disinclined to accept the English merchants as equals and negotiate with them on a level of equality.

This stupid attitude of pseudo superiority forced them to hold on to their belief of the inferiority of the merchant-class from England. The English merchants were not under similar strangleholds of the language, as experienced by the Chinese merchants. This was the real starting point of dispute and antipathy. It led to the Opium Wars.

Again, the English won in a war, which they fought, from few ships in a far-away land, which even in those days could claim the greatest of human resources.

Bowing before the officialdom in feudal China. This is practically there in all feudal language nations, including India. However, the physical bowing may have disappeared. However, in the language codes, people do bent, bow and cringe before the officialdom even now.

Picture details:

Credit line: Wellcome Trust logo.svg

This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive).

References Library reference: ICV No 15478

Photo number: V0015171

Full Bibliographic Record:

Source/Photographer

Gallery:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Actually the war was not fought between two groups of people. It was between two different communication software. The one, which had the least of communication blocks and could function faster with the least of hindrances, won. It was only the most logical thing to happen.

Usually, in feudal language conditions, persons tend not to move out from the sphere of influence of their feudal position. Wherever they go, they tend to carry their feudal positions for exhibition. In a way, this lead to a life of living in an artificial halo, with not much understanding of the realities. They communicate only with persons who are willing to show exquisite homage, who do it possibly to exploit the situation. These persons slowly tend to think that the whole world is of minor importance in comparison to their own worth.

This stupid attitude is very much evident in the letter sent by the Chinese Emperor to the English King. The size of Britain is insignificant when compared to that of China. Any gift that came from the English Monarch could only be regarded as a piece of homage, and not as a gift from an equal person. A part of the letter is quoted here:

You, O King, live beyond the confines of many seas, nevertheless, impelled by your desire to partake of the benefits of our civilisation, you have despatched a mission respectfully bearing your memorial. Your Envoy——has crossed the seas and paid his respects at my Court on the anniversary of my birthday. To show your devotion you have also sent, offerings of your country’s produce.

I have perused your memorial: the earnest terms in which it is couched reveal a respectful humility, on your part, which is highly praise worthy. Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfil the duties of the state: strange and costly objects do not interest me. I—have no use of your country’s manufactures. It behoves you, O King to respect my sentiments and to display even greater devotion and loyalty in future, so that by perpetual submission to our Throne, you may secure peace and prosperity for your country hereafter.

Tremblingly obey and show no negligence.

NOTE added on the 21st of May 2016: This is only an English translation of a letter written in a terribly feudal language. The exact evilness embedded in the words will never get translated into English. For, English does not have any corresponding words codes.

Some historians have opined that King George of England must have been shocked at the audacity and arrogance expressed by the Chinese Emperor in his letter to him. For, the Chinese Emperor was addressing a small king and that, in Chinese language could have allowed the bold impoliteness of expression. However my own feeling is that the Monarch of England and his councillors must have been amused by the tone and this letter itself could have given them the evidence of the underlying stupidity and structural weakness in the Chinese society.

Here it must be emphasised that when the English West is thinking of going for commercial enterprise inside China, they should go from a position of supreme strength. They should maintain an armour of impenetrable united-ness. They should only interact from a base of English language and never, ever try to bring in or allow the entry of Chinese language into their environment. For once the environment turns Chinese, power would move to the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats, and the English would lose their vantage position.

Here I would like to slightly digress on to a certain factor about communist leaders. In many countries, they enjoy great power and, naturally, the luxury power can deliver. At the same time, they have to live within the limitations proposed by their political philosophy. In the modern world, this is a very difficult. For modern technologies have brought in gadgetry that, if kept at a distance, can offer a real tormenting temptation.

Let me take case of communist leaders in India. Many of them, after getting across to the national political canvas, get to taste the international scene. The satellite television, Internet, Computers, International travel, Five Star Hotels etc. The cosiness of these items really intoxicates them, for they have come from philosophical areas, which very forcefully argued that all these are the toys of the exploiting rich. They slowly start making all these items a part of their living style. Later they find that from the vantage positions that they occupy, they can easily be a part of the businesses which these technologies offer.

The next scene is that they are all running businesses of vast dimensions, like Satellite TV channels &c. They also having their fingers in various such enterprises. Now, the communist parties descend to condoning capitalism, and private ownership. All in the name of progressive correction of ideology. However it should be understood that this is only a opportunistic, fooling of the followers. For what is being done is to use the ideological change to legitimise the capitalistic ventures of the Communist leaders. These leaders naturally are very feudal in their social communications. And are not at all different from the earlier feudal lords, whom they claim to have fought against. The same thing is now taking place in China.