In Chinese history it seems to be a case of foreign powers c

>2017
>posting in threads about 'great' Britain, Shitaly, and Neverlands
>not posting about 1.3 billion people

There were always hundreds of millions of Han Chinese and they were numerically and culturally superior to their conquerors. The bureaucracy was incredibly important in China and they had a relatively meritocratic systems for centuries. The reason why foreigners could conquer China and establish dynasties in the first place was because the rule of the emperor was tied to heavenly mandate, if the emperor fucked up it was divine will and resistance would fade eventually.

In Europe the smaller numbers of the population meant that while there was assimilation into the original group there was also more amalgamation and creation of something new. Britain is a good example.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146III-373,_Modell_der_Neugestaltung_Berlins_(-Germania-).jpg (272KB, 608x800px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 608x800px

isn't that same in europe?
germanics for example are rome-boo, while they destroyed it

>>71366326
Pretty much this >>71366749 a few nomads from the steppes aren't going to assimilate hundreds of gorillions of people no matter what they do. Assimilation generally wasn't their interest anyway

>>71366326
It happened in Europe for the longest time
Rome/Catholic Europe did that to all pagans.
Also happened with pretty much all Norse invaders, Nubians that took over Egypt, Mongols to some extent, as well as almost all other nomadic peoples who settled.

It's just what happens when the new rulers are severely outnumbered by their subjects.

>>71366326
It has happened constantly throughout all our history, all over the world. It is likely we will all eventually equalise into a single collective culture. The very act of using the internet and same technology brings us closer, culturally. Indeed you could argue that there are no nations that haven't added western culture into their own already, considering how prolific it is in recent history, coinciding with the rise of information technology and global connectedness. Meaning everyone is at least somewhat western. I imagine due to China becoming more powerful, thus more relevant and it having such a large population, that it will play at least a small part in shaping this global culture.

This "global culture" is likely inevitable without heavily regressing literally every facet of the world and partitioning ourselves off from each other. It is probably a good thing for our social and technological progression as a species, for such a thing to form.

>>71370838
>I imagine due to China becoming more powerful, thus more relevant and it having such a large population, that it will play at least a small part in shaping this global culture.

>Chinese culture
404 not found. Mao Zedong took care of that.

>>71370871
True, physically in art and such it took a big hit but that is surface culture, culture is most relevant and prominent in the mentalities and experiences of the people themselves. China is pretty diverse in this sense too, the mentality of the average person on opposite ends of the country is very different.

>>71370871
This is true. China today is a gray, miserable, polluted dystopia.