Could China or Japan ever colonize North America

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#21
there had been a *wrong* assumption been made previously that a china lacks the knowledge the new world, plus another implication that only *independently* discover new geography information could drive for colonization.
Until evidence is provided to the contrary, there is no justification to believe or even suggest that China discovered the existence of the New World on its own, or that it would have. Nothing suggest that it was likely that the Chinese would have discovered the New World for reasons already given and you have ignored.

If the European discovered the New World, then it is extremely unlikely they would not have colonized it. In any case, even when the Chinese did know of the existence of the New World, they did not even try to sail there on their own to trade with known customers, nor did they try to colonize it even when they knew of its existence, that is historical reality. Alaska was not colonized by Europeans until the 18th century, yet China knew of the existence of the Americas in the early 17th century. Case closed.


1. china knows the america. one may claim european missionary made a great job here. indeed, the west had more surviving records on world exploration. however, that is irrelevant to colonization issue. china knows southeastern asian islands thousands of years beofore europea, but no colonization happened.
Exactly. The Chinese did not colonize southeastern asian islands, sonnonreason to assert they would have colonized North America.

knowledge of geography may be important, but it does not drive colonization.
2. on the other hand, colonization could happen based on explorations performed by other people.
many of french colonies were built by conquering the colonies of other powers.
one does not necessarily need to independently perform the exploration, but just to have some clue of the exploration
So what? China did not even colonize nearby lands that were overseas, there is logical reason to assume they would have colonized evd more distant lands. When it comes to lands you need ships to colonize, the Chinesse show no interest in colonizing until others have colonized it first. It was after the Dutch had colonized Taiwan that the Chinese decided to colonize it. There are lots of Chinese in Vancouver today, and the Chinese knew about the New World since at least the early 17th with Ricci's map, but made no effort to settle there until after somebody else had built the cities.

now, again, one may claim china had less chinese own brand of knowledge on world geography, but that is not necessarily the point the colony problems.
Maybe true, but you yourself have shown that the Chinese did not settle closer lands despite knowing about them, so no reason to be think they would settle the more distant Americas. Historical precedence of what the Chinese actually did is against it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
some more.
europe and china were quite different economy bodies.
the mother nations of colonization were focusing on a predatory economy that they sought both resources and end market with a monopoly role, known for slave trade, sugar trade, and coffee trade.
the market was not in fact in the new world as they being colonies. they served as resources for the europe, based on a market of turning aborigine nations/tribes into colonies, or sending western people to expand colonies.
You are ignorant of the colonization of New England. The government had little to do with the colonization of the area, which was mostly a private affair by people who wanted to establish their own communities they could run and worshiped as they liked. The English North American colonies were used as a dumping grounds for dissidents, poor, and criminals, and Australia started off as a Penal colonies for criminals. True, many colonies were created mainly for profit, for gold and silver, or to raise a valuable cash crop like sugar or tea, but that was not always the case.


if the market rule was made based on equal trading, there perhaps would not be any colony even with the exact knowledge of all continents.
As I said, not all.colonies are created because of market reasons. Some were created as prison colonies, or were largely settled for political and religious reasons, not market ones. The reasons Britain conized India is quite different than why it colonized North America or Australia.

thus it is basically wrong to assert " If the Chinese, knowing there was a profitable market for their goods, and knowing where the land was, didn't try to sail to North America, then I don't see the Chinese not even being certain there was land there, would ever bother to make the attempt. "

the western attempt to "find market" in new worlds is based on a twisted idea of monopoly to "create" markets of a predatory economy.
Did your Communist masters teach you that in school? Your words sound like a something Marxist would say. In any case, the Europe desire to find new routes was not predatory, but driven by consumer demand. Sea base transportation has historically been much cheaper than land based transportation. It was a desire for Chinese food that drove Europeans to find new and better trading routes. A sea based route had the potential to be a more economical method of transporting good than the land based Silk Road. On the Silk Road, only luxury goods like silk could afford to be shipped, but by sea, even ordinary commidties like tea could be shipped from China.

To argue that the Chinese weren't interested in profit or making money as you imply is nonsense. The Chinese were as interested in profit as any, and the numberous Chinese who engaged in piracy did not do so for religious reasons as you seem to think. Money, profit, were motivation for Chinese merchants and pirates, same as everybody else.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,209
China
#22
your wrong assumptions that
1. chinese do not colonize america is induced by chinese do not know america
2. colonization happens with fresh independent discovery or "on its own "
were proven to be false claims.

i do not join you in other unrelated debate that whether chinese independently discovered america.


Did your Communist masters teach you that in school? Your words sound like a something Marxist would say. In any case, the Europe desire to find new routes was not predatory, but driven by consumer demand. Sea base transportation has historically been much cheaper than land based transportation. It was a desire for Chinese food that drove Europeans to find new and better trading routes. A sea based route had the potential to be a more economical method of transporting good than the land based Silk Road. On the Silk Road, only luxury goods like silk could afford to be shipped, but by sea, even ordinary commidties like tea could be shipped from China.

To argue that the Chinese weren't interested in profit or making money as you imply is nonsense. The Chinese were as interested in profit as any, and the numberous Chinese who engaged in piracy did not do so for religious reasons as you seem to think. Money, profit, were motivation for Chinese merchants and pirates, same as everybody else.
consumer demand? who are the consumers?

the dead indians or the dead inca people?
indeed, as i already pointed out the consumers are still westerners. the colonization is very profitable, because the goods were obtained almost without a cost.
the aborigines were not actually paid according to the values of the goods, or black people were transported to colonies to perform unpaid labors.
without those, the colonization cannot be profitable.

you added "Chinese weren't interested in profit or making money ", which is wrong, and certainly not my implication.

chinese were not intend to pursue trades such as slave trading, and sugar coffee plants based on slavery.

there were chinese pirates
however, colonization happened as a nation behavior in west. chinese pirates are just pirates who are the minor and unwanted fraction of the chinese nation.

chinese did not force a civilization to feed the silk worms.
colonization is not about trade route. it has no similarity with silk road.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2016
855
Merryland
#23
I've heard / read stories about a huge Chinese fleet that crossed the Pacific in an exploration voyage and landed on North America, but on return they found no interest in further exploration / colonization. shame; that would have been a great way to deal with the overpopulation.

Did the Chinese beat Columbus to America?

***But what of physical evidence? If the Chinese had landed in the Americas -- let alone traded with and governed the people they found there, wouldn't direct evidence of their presence remain? Menzies and the proponents of the 1421 theory say it does exist. In the Pacific Northwest of the present-day United States, investigations at eight different sites have uncovered Chinese coins. A garment from the Nez Perce tribe of present-day Idaho that's dated at over 300 years old has woven ornaments into it that are believed to be Chinese beads. And in the Florida Keys and off the coast of Big Sur, Calif., artifacts of pre-Columbian Chinese jade have been unearthed from a riverbed and the sea floor.***

trans-Pacific colonization would have been difficult but not impossible. the West Coast of North America certainly more settler-friendly than the East Coast. the Natives tended to be more peaceful as I understand it, and might have tolerated small settlements.
wild card; disease. did China have smallpox etc?
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#24
I've heard / read stories about a huge Chinese fleet that crossed the Pacific in an exploration voyage and landed on North America, but on return they found no interest in further exploration / colonization. shame; that would have been a great way to deal with the overpopulation.

Did the Chinese beat Columbus to America?

***But what of physical evidence? If the Chinese had landed in the Americas -- let alone traded with and governed the people they found there, wouldn't direct evidence of their presence remain? Menzies and the proponents of the 1421 theory say it does exist. In the Pacific Northwest of the present-day United States, investigations at eight different sites have uncovered Chinese coins. A garment from the Nez Perce tribe of present-day Idaho that's dated at over 300 years old has woven ornaments into it that are believed to be Chinese beads. And in the Florida Keys and off the coast of Big Sur, Calif., artifacts of pre-Columbian Chinese jade have been unearthed from a riverbed and the sea floor.***.
Coins are notorious bad proof. Chinese fisherman were known to have been active on the west coast in the 19th century, or they could have come from sailors who had visited China. The coins could have washd up on shore as part of a great storm. After the infamous Fukishima Tsunami, a lot of debriz washed up on shore on the west coast, including motorcycle? Coins by themselves prove nothing.

The questions to ask are:

1. Were only Chinese coins found at these same sites? We're other coins found there as well?

2. Were the coins only from the Ming dynasty, or were their ones from earlier dynasty or later Dynasties. Exactly when were these coins minted? The reign of what emperor? If they were from the Song dynasty, then how likely would some Minf sailor be carrying? Any more likely than an European sailor who found the coin interesting but worthless, except to natives who like just the metal?

3. Were other Chinese artifacts from the Ming dynasty around? Like what? A Chinese knife, fishhooks, etc.?

4. On the alleged Jade piece in Florida, how do we know it wasn't lost by some Spanish Galleon, or later wrecks that we know occurred? How and when.was the Jade found? If found in the 20th century, it could have been lost in the 20th century.

Similar questions could be asked about all Menzies other so called evidence. What makes the evidence for the pre Columbian Vikings in the New World is that a site was found, not just random artifacts. If just a Viking coin was found, people would not say that was proof. Just as the Kennington stone is rejected by most scholars. Giving Menzie any air time is a disservice to history.

trans-Pacific colonization would have been difficult but not impossible. the West Coast of North America certainly more settler-friendly than the East Coast. the Natives tended to be more peaceful as I understand it, and might have tolerated small settlements.
wild card; disease. did China have smallpox etc?
Yes, Chinese had smallpox. And if we can find small Viking settlements, we should be able to find such Chinese ones also. We have not. The fact we haven't is further evidence against the idea.

The Menzies of the world love evidence like coins, which could be dropped by anyone at any time, and hate evidence like L'Anse Aux Meadows, which is much harder to manipulate or fabricate.
 
Likes: sailorsam
Oct 2016
855
Merryland
#25
as I understand it the Chinese voyage wasn't intended to place colonies, but it demonstrates the feasibility of Chinese-American sea travel, and indicates that China knew about the Americas.

so if the theories are right China knew about the Americas, it just didn't care; but colonization was physically possible.

what-if Europe never colonizes the Americas? China might have, eventually. I believe that's postulated in the book 'Years of Rice and Salt'...but that's another thread.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#26
as I understand it the Chinese voyage wasn't intended to place colonies, but it demonstrates the feasibility of Chinese-American sea travel, and indicates that China knew about the Americas.
There is no evidence that the pre Euoropean contact Chinese knew of America. No account of it's discover shows up in any written records, no archeology shows up that really supports it. There were 10 as many Chinese in Zheng He fleet as there were Viking settlers, probably 100 times more. Yet we found the remains of the Viking visits.

If there is no documentary or physical evidence worthy of the name, then you can say the Chinese knew about America before the Europeans told them. I could say ancient aliens gave China all it's technology, there is no evidence for that either.

Unless there is some actual evidence to the contrary, all we can say is that the pre Europeanan.contact Chinese did not visit or know about America.

Unlike many other things, like some scientific or mathematical discovery, where the Ming Chinese did say that their ancestors had already discovered when the Jesuits introduced those ideas into China, the Chinese never said to the Jesuits "Oh, America, we knew about that land, but we called it something else, and found it to be worthless, so we never went back" or anything similar. And if the Chinese had discovered the New World on their own, it would have been certain they would have told the Jesuits that. But the Chinese didn't do that, because they didn't discover America. The Chinese claims to have discovered a lot other things first, but not that. Because they didn't tell the Jesuits that, and no previously undiscovered document says that, we can rule out the Chinese discovering the Americas.

  1. Only in the modern times, when China has become the rising power, have some Chinese and their lackeys like Menzies make the claim. (Who do you think funded and got Gavin Menzies book printed and promoted?) Given that China is the leading nation of forgers and counterfeiters in the world today, I would not be surprised if the edvince for such mythology Chinese voyages miraculously appearsi a few years when Chinese forget skills become cleargood enough to get away with the task. Right now, the forger skills are not up to the task to get away with it.


so if the theories are right China knew about the Americas, it just didn't care; but colonization was physically possible.
Ancient aliens giving China all its advance technology, and when they stopped giving China its technology, China fell behind is also possible and equally likely.

And was colonization possible? The Chinese had further distance to travel, and their magnetic compasses were not as good as Euopeans ones, nor were their time keeping methods as good for estimating distances. Chinese compasses were not mounted on pivoting gimbals to compensate for ship motion , nor mounted on a windrose to aid in determining direction. They lacked reusable hourglasses for measuring time at seas for estimating distances. I know of no Chinese ship visiting America before the 19th century. Chinese fishermen using Chinese Junks were fishing off American waters in the 19th century, so why didn't they don't earlier, if China knew about America? Did Chinese waters suddenly run out of fish in the. 19th century?

a
what-if Europe never colonizes the Americas? China might have, eventually. I believe that's postulated in the book 'Years of Rice and Salt'...but that's another thread.
Unlikely. The Chinese didn't even colonize Taiwan until after the Dutch did, and that is right around the corner compare to North America. So if they didn't conize Taiwan, why should we think they would conize North America, much further away?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,310
Portugal
#27
i do not join you in other unrelated debate that whether chinese independently discovered america.
And yet you implied or even seemed to state that in almost every of your post in this thread.

And when I questioned you directly about it your silence (ignoring the questions) about it seemed very noisy and revealing to me.

Until evidence is provided to the contrary, there is no justification to believe or even suggest that China discovered the existence of the New World on its own, or that it would have. Nothing suggest that it was likely that the Chinese would have discovered the New World for reasons already given and you have ignored.
There is no evidence that the pre Euoropean contact Chinese knew of America. No account of it's discover shows up in any written records, no archeology shows up that really supports it. There were 10 as many Chinese in Zheng He fleet as there were Viking settlers, probably 100 times more. Yet we found the remains of the Viking visits.
Exactly.

Sometimes I don’t even understand why the “Discovery of America” raises so many issues in a History forum. This is not supposed to be a pseudo-history forum, yet sometimes… we fall in that trap.

When there is no evidence there is no History.

With the Chinese (or others pre-Columbian discoverers) we can have more or less wild assumptions or hypothesis that can be taken seriously among a group of friends while drinking some booze, but in the academic circles or in serious historic discussions we have to take those ideas for what they are: they can range from wild goose chases to windows of opportunity for serious research, in any of the cases the lack of evidences, sources, either written or archaeological or other, will keep those ideas as… ideas.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,209
China
#28
And yet you implied or even seemed to state that in almost every of your post in this thread.

And when I questioned you directly about it your silence (ignoring the questions) about it seemed very noisy and revealing to me.
you have been explicitly told i don't imply it is all explored by chinese.

but 1. chinese already knew the new world
2. chinese map came with state of art knowledge.

the BD spoke that china did not colonize new world due to a lack of knowledge
while i say, despite of knowing it, it is not necessarily a nation with the knowledge of new world to colonize the new world.

with my explicit speaking that the topic is not on who discovers america, i don't believe it is relevant to answer previous your questions, that is unrelated with the question "why china did not colonize"

you fall into your own understanding that the topic became "who discovers america", but i am answering why "china did not colonize america"
there cannot be an equal symbol between the two, can there?

you have not yet given answers why china did not colonize america, 17 th century, not late, right?

1. not necessarily all explored by chinese ships, communications between china and other places of the world do not block the fact that the 1595 maps show wrong (not inaccurate) shape of south america (again, comparison of shapes is only valid when maps using the same projection method, if you don't know this, you just do not know the basics of maps)
apparently, i did not say it is made based on chinese explorations.
but chinese knows the existence of america, and america appeared on chinese maps.

and more, those things got NOTHING to do about a colonization.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,310
Portugal
#29
you have been explicitly told i don't imply it is all explored by chinese.

but 1. chinese already knew the new world

2. chinese map came with state of art knowledge.
Sorry, probably I misunderstood you. I didn’t notice that clear explicitly.

But in that case I would like to know the sources, as I also already asked a couple of times.

1. If the “chinese already knew the new world”, before the Spanish arrival, what are the source(s) that we have about that? Sources are quite relevant in history.

2. Surely you are not talking about the Matteo’s Ricci map? It is not exactly a Chinese map! What map are you mentioning here?

the BD spoke that china did not colonize new world due to a lack of knowledge

while i say, despite of knowing it, it is not necessarily a nation with the knowledge of new world to colonize the new world.

with my explicit speaking that the topic is not on who discovers america, i don't believe it is relevant to answer previous your questions, that is unrelated with the question "why china did not colonize"
No one will force you to answer my question, I just think that they are relevant to the discussion, to prove your point, you can’t colonize a place what you don’t know. Proving that China knew about the existence of the “New World” is the first step to understand if China ever had that colonization option, or if you are only talking about alternative history.

you fall into your own understanding that the topic became "who discovers america", but i am answering why "china did not colonize america"

there cannot be an equal symbol between the two, can there?
Again, China, or any other entity, can’t colonize what it doesn’t know. That seems like questioning why Spain didn’t colonize America in the 14th century. Well… Spain discovered America in the following one. Discovering/knowing its existence is a pre-requisite to colonization.

you have not yet given answers why china did not colonize america, 17 th century, not late, right?
Sorry, I didn’t understood this question. Can you elaborate?
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,209
China
#30
Sorry, probably I misunderstood you. I didn’t notice that clear explicitly.

But in that case I would like to know the sources, as I also already asked a couple of times.

1. If the “chinese already knew the new world”, before the Spanish arrival, what are the source(s) that we have about that? Sources are quite relevant in history.

2. Surely you are not talking about the Matteo’s Ricci map? It is not exactly a Chinese map! What map are you mentioning here?
chinese already knew the new world, but whether "before the Spanish arrival", i don't know.
that is irrelevant.
this "already" means when others were performing "colonization", china was not without knowledge.
the map did happened in china, with lots of raw data from china, whether the american part is from west, i don't know. the point is the map (as you may claim not fully chinese) did give chinese knowledge on new world

Sorry, I didn’t understood this question. Can you elaborate?
this closely related to the above.

as we knew new colonies even happen in 19th century. so when chinese know about the new world, there is still space to colonize.
chinese did not

so as I repeated, I focus on the OP, not who makes the novel discoveries of lands, chinese did not colonize when the knowledge is available.
 

Similar History Discussions