I was surprised how there could be an optimistic conclusion to such a
depressing storyline. Amid a growing increase in the number of
farming migrants to the Inner Mongolian grasslands, concerted efforts
to eradicate wolves and introduce farmlands into the area are
undertaken. While wolves no longer harm livestock and herders become
settled residents with regular services and amenities enjoyed by other
citizens, the grasslands slowly turned into a vast desert spewing sand
toward Beijing to the south.
It seems that under modern pressures, the grassland and its masters
budged, abandoning the principles that kept the grasslands healthy and
sustainable for centuries. A shallow perspective would feel that this
is but another typical Chinese phenomenon of trading wealth for
environment, but the author has pointed out the final and ultimate
demise of the nomadic-herding tribes are the greatest loss. For
generations, through invasions and wars, the nomads have taught the
wealthy farmers to the south the meaning of life struggles, of
determination, of group unity, of everything that is represented by
wolves and their human disciples on the grassland.
Now, without these teachers to constantly remind them of the need for
strong personality and sense of competition, will the dominating
farmers return to a weakened mind through unopposed cultivation of the
land, this time unchecked by potential wars? Fortunately, the author
came up with a rather hard-to-satisfy twist in his wolf analogy to fit
the modern circumstances. He argues that the reason for the modern
strength of European and Japanese powers is the "sea wolf" quality
that these people possess. Their spirits, acquered through life of
dangerous fishing and maritime explorations, are even stronger than
that generated by the "land wolves" of Mongolian steppes.
In other words, with modern technologies that allow for almost instant
interaction between even those on opposite corners of the Earth, it is
argued that the Mongolian "land wolves," which for centuries have
helped Chinese maintain that "wild" sense of determination and
competitiveness, have now fulfilled their mission and can enter the
history books. The defeat of the nomadic Manchus in the hands of the
Russians and the Japanese signaled the beginning of the "land wolves'"
inevitable demise, a fate sealed by the destruction of their last
pristine grasslands in the pro-farming policies of the People's
Republic.
As sad that I am seeing even the last nomadic Mongolians favoring
permanent settlement over harshness of herding in constant transition,
I actually can see the similarities, if not the correlation, between
the "sea wolf" and "land wolf" qualities. As one growing up in
America, I hold the same values of freedom and independence valued by
nomadic-herders, preferring flexibility in solitude over constraining
hurdles of the family. Furthermore, I tend to hold a sense of
openness to new ideas and matters, a quality much more common for the
"sea wolves" that can travel to anywhere near an ocean, but deficit
among "land wolves" that have trouble adjusting to life outside
grasslands without losing core values over time (as seen for so many
nomadic tribes living in farming regions).
As long as there is ability to roam the oceans, the "sea wolf" can put
its value to use, while "land wolves" die outside of its grassland
home. That is perhaps why seafaring powers have not only survived
conquests by the Mongol Empire, but also became examples of quick
adaptations, improving the methods and weaponry of the "land wolves"
and becoming dominant powers of the globe later on. More strikingly,
capitalism, a bloodless yet extremely violent and heartless exercise
in competition for survival, was invented by the seafarers for
strengthening itself without the need to constantly reduce itself own
capital through violent wars with animals and other humans.
At the same time, the author put forward the idea of balancing
"wolf-like" and "sheep-like" qualities. The violent and expansionist
qualities of the wolf must only be released at a moderate pace without
overwhelming the obedient, diligent work ethic of the "sheep" in order
to prevent excess violence that disturbs progress. Chinese
civilization, as it was repeatedly invaded by "wolves," saw
destruction of countless economic assets, cultural relic, not to
mention peoples. The Chinese survived not just because the nomads
brought their genes and ideas to farming areas, but also because the
farmers learned to become more aggressive and "wolf-like" in
self-protection after losing the assets passed down and accumulated by
generations of family efforts.
Thus the books ends with optimism. The Chinese have learned
capitalism and utilized it to its brutal extreme. The rowdy people on
streets shouting to provide often deceptive services and selling fake
knick-knacks may be the true inheritor of China's own "sea wolf"
mentalities. But as the author said, the majority of Chinese are
still meek farmers, seeking peace in poverty over that life-on-death
struggle on the streets. With more and more farmers moving to the
cities, I see the determination of grassland nomads unthinkable in
imperial China. But at the same time, I fear that the "wolf-like"
qualities are once again becoming too dominant in China. Will violent
conflict once again cause population decrease? That is to say, will
we fall back into that historical cycle of shifting balances between
"wolves" and "sheep"?
Comments
Post a Comment