Like Dexter, I am getting through this only slowly. I find myself both fascinated and repulsed. It is indeed sobering to realize how much I had been handed a pack of cliches which seemingly could not be questioned.
In answer to this question, it is clear to me that Chinese culture is highly insular, in much the same way that European culture is. Yet both have been influenced heavily by each other. We tend to think it is a one-way process of technology from the West being adapted and ideology of Marxism being adopted. Yet we also know that Marx had little to say about the peasant-feudal society of Warlord China overthrown by the Communist Party, and if asked, would probably have declared that it needed to become capitalist (at least to the extent that Russia had by 1917) in order to evolve into socialism. The Chinese Communists made their own way (borrowing heavily from Leninist modes of direct culural transformation). Their technique of self-criticism, for example, seems to have been both effective and either invented by them or transformed so heavily as to be unrecognizable as a borrowing. Similarly technological borrowings from China had become important determinants of evolution in European society, most notably paper and printing, and gunpowder, so it makes little sense to draw any general conclusions from the fact that borrowing moved mostly in the opposite direction after the Industrial Revolution.
Singapore, which is one of the most successful societies on earth (Crazy Rich Asians?), represents a good example of the syncretistic blending of the two cultures, and stands as the shining example of the benefits of Benevolent Dictatorship.
To properly understand the interaction, both competitive and cooperative, between these two great divisions of human society would take a lifetime of study. What is being offered for our consideration with this book is the way the dramatically effective program of popular education gets hijacked by the machinery of oligarchic manipulation. Rather than holding that knowledge of the truth will always benefit the society, pressures to enforce particular narratives have shaped the way the facts are edited. This chapter really brought this home to me, because it is obvious that the same dynamic which led European settler society to find a pretext for war in 1812, (when their real goal was dispossession of Native American peoples,) continued to shape the editing for either white innocence, by contrasting savages with the civilized, or alternatively white inevitability in which we may not have had the virtues of tolerance or humanism but at least we were overwhelmingly more powerful. It is sobering that this advantage may have been entirely one of biological resistance to disease. It is even more sobering that the supposed benefits of Christian society gave way time after time to the simple thirst for power and land.
It has occurred to me that the stiff-necked insistence that success reflected the will of God, promoted especially by Calvinism, might explain why the English colonies did not simply enslave the earlier settlers, as the Spaniards did, (though they took plenty of slaves, which I had not realized), yet also could not accept overt syncretism. It was an ideology of broad-based power of an economic nature, rather than the feudal ideology of power through violent domination by a thin stratum of warriors (the well-known tension between Roundheads and Cavaliers enacted the struggle between the two, but so did the 30 Years War in Germany of approximately the same time, in which "total war" tactics of stripping the land and denying livelihood to the peasants has been said to have set back the German economy by 100 years). Odd that an insistence on ''popular" virtue led to genocidal results where "aristocratic" virtue of a domination system allowed many more to survive.
Most seriously, for me, this chapter led me to consider the extent to which shapers of the historical narrative reflect the priorities of what we might call Entrepreneurs of Domination. The railroad barons of the North were just a variation on the earlier Jacksonian conquest of the Southeast from the Five Civilized Tribes, which culminated in the Trail of Tears. The pattern is that particular innovators prove effective at marshalling the levers of narrative for a process that really just comes down to their own enrichment and elevation. Jackson's evasion and erosion of the rule of law, with echoes in our time, is not just the time-honored motif of the man on horseback riding in to tame chaos. He revolutionized American politics by marshalling the populism of the expansionary wave made possible by his Indian Wars, and seemingly tolerated constitutional arrangements and the high-falutin theories of Jefferson, Madison, Marshall and Jay only to the extent that these fit with his drive to a position of dominance. It's worth remembering that Jackson repudiated both Secession and Nullification when it was New Englanders promoting these options against the Southern dominance of the time.
Red Eyes makes the case that the most inexorable shaper of our narrative was simply the insistence on "our" self-determination, with efforts to include Native voice repudiated over and over. The Law was not at all sacred, it was just ours. We did not want to have to deal with the complication of "outsiders" having influence, and over and over those who argued fo). r accepting such influence on the basis of either right or pragmatism were simply excluded from the arrangements of power. While that undoubtedly represented a convenient cleavage in people's perceptions, discerning "Christian" European society by contrast with "Wild" (which is what the French term "sauvage" means) Native American society, it also clearly overlooks the efforts by land-owners and Entrepeneurs of Domination to occupy positions of power within a particular set of arrangements and therefor to create an "us" that they would dominate. (Zinn brings some of this out in his People's History).
Some of my ancestors come from an area in North Central Pennsylvania, south of the Finger Lakes district of New York, in which Native Americans mingled freely with Europeans. One in particular is referred to in the family lore as the Red-Headed Irishman and seems to have come from England, apparently to escape a marriage, and taken several Native women as consorts, whether simultaneously or not I do not know. This kind of free-wheeling society was frowned on by Christian culture, (even though similar experiences may have led to the Free Love communes which grew up in Upstate New York and Western Ohio in the days of the Erie Canal, and possibly even to polygamous Mormonism which arose around that time and place), and when my mother came to the area in the 80s to investigate the records for genealogical purposes, her questions about the modern descendants of such liaisons, known locally as The Pool (or perhaps Poole), were met with stony silence and refusal to cooperate. I know of similar intermarriage patterns in North Carolina and Navajo country. Might the temptations of Native culture, so well documented in this chapter and widely known at the time, have led to a very different evolution of society in America if there had been no pattern of policing by cultural imperialists? We may never know, but we can look back and see the irony of overlooking imperialistic abuses even while policing family relations. The powerful are in a position to arrange for excuses to be made, and guarding that power may involve scape-goating the "wild" ways of those who are in a position to transgress with impunity at the bottom of the heap. Shades of the modern abortion debate.