I did write: “I can accept that China’s frequent natural disasters have had a pretty huge effect on the development of Chinese culture and civilisation- how many other countries include flood control in their founding legends?”, so yes, I do see the connection between geography, and in China’s case, frequent natural disasters, and the development of a civilisation.

Also, in quoting Lao Zi, I was certainly not trying to invalidate any theories, I was simply pointing out that there is much less unanimity on the value of a single, large, united state than the author was suggesting.

As for this guy Landes, interesting ideas, but don’t you think he takes things a bit too far? As for climate and geography: Does Europe not have many canals? What about Holland’s dykes, built to reclaim land from the sea? Roman roads and aqueducts? Water seems to me to have been pretty important to Europe, too, and surely Europe’s many large infrastructural projects required a lot of cheap, quite possibly indentured, or worse, labour? And like the author of that CNG article, he asserts that a tropical climate prevents development, which is patently absurd: Ever heard of Angkor Wat? And Buddhism played the role in Japan that Calvinism played in Europe? Then why not in Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Mongolia, or Sri Lanka?

And, of course: If Europe’s climate is so favourable, why is that for most of history Europe was playing catch-up?

Clearly, climate and geography affect the development of a culture and civilisation. The house I am sitting in, a traditional, northern Chinese siheyuan, is proof of that, is are all traditional forms of architecture. Climate and geography are only two of many factors, though.

Landes’ view (as summarized) goes like this:

“The more benign geography and climate of the West, by contrast, supported a more independent life. There was less need to concentrate labor on the land. It was possible to survive outside the confines of the coordinating state. Germanic law and tradition, appropriate to the circumstances of Central Europe’s nomadic tribes, recognized each individual as master of his possessions, a custom of which mobility was the ultimate arbiter. Since the oppressed were able to vote with their feet, state power derived from consent and was therefore limited. From this followed the rise of city-states and competition among them, including competition to attract economic resources and cultivate military might. To be sure, the growth of the Smithian market required a strong centralist state in sixteenth-century England and seventeenth-century France, but there was still a sharp contrast with Eastern despotism.”

Interesting perspective, here.

This theory of history is by no means uncontroversial, but the writer’s use of it in the article is hardly due to his (or her) being “too caught up in modern Chinese nationalism”. No less than the noted economic historian David Landes, professor emeritus at Harvard, has written on similar themes.

See, for example, this essay review on Landes’ book “Wealth and Poverty of Nations: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980301fareviewessay1379/barry-eichengreen/geography-as-destiny-a-brief-history-of-economic-growth.html

“The ultimate product of Europe’s geography and climate was Western democracy itself. In India and China, flood and drought made the control of water flow essential to the production of food. Controlling water in turn entailed the construction of large-scale hydraulic projects by forced labor. This implied a powerful, centralized state whose tentacles extended into all parts of the economy. Private property and individual initiative were luxuries such societies could ill afford.”

Again, Landes’ views are debatable (and indeed, they are a fun and illuminating subject of debate), but I would not be so quick to dismiss the CNG writer’s thesis as a parochial and uninformed expression of Chinese nationalism.

Also, one should note that the National Geographic Society in the U.S. was (and perhaps remains) motivated by the spirit of Manifest Destiny and its cousin, American Exceptionalism. The reason Americans read NG is to help understand who they are as a nation (hence the title), so it should not be surprising that CNG follows a similar theme with respect to the Chinese nation. This link talks a little about that.
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photographers/first-photo-article.html

You’re right about Laozi, but the fact that Laozi’s ideas might have argued against this kind of vast organized state does not invalidate the “unified state” theme. Don’t forget that Taoist, Confucian and Legalist ideas have always been in competition.

But thanks again for an interesting comment. Good luck on Chinese study.