Zheng He's voyage to the West was a missed opportunity

When: April 21, 2022 at 7 p.m

Guest: Jared Diamond Naturalist, Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, National Academy of Sciences

Xiang Biao is an anthropologist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Germany

Moderator: Qiu Yu, researcher of the "100 Talents Program" of Zhejiang University

Organizer: CITIC Publishing Group

Professor Jared Diamond's "History of Mankind" series of works, including Guns, Germs and Steel, Collapse, The World Before Yesterday, And Upheaval, etc., was launched by CITIC Publishing Group in January 2022, discussing many issues related to human nature, evolution and conquest, environment and society, tradition and modernity, crisis and the future, and trying to outline the logic and trajectory of human social development to today. On the evening of April 21, Professor Jared Diamond and Professor Xiang Biao concluded with the theme "How did human society get to where it is today?" And where will it go? "As the theme, combined with the new version of diamond's series of works, look back at the pace of the development of human civilization, explore the crisis facing modern society and the significance of writing history and society."

Why did a world-renowned expert in the field of gallbladder suddenly decide to write a book when he was over 50 years old?

Moderator: Tonight we are very honored to invite two internationally renowned scholars, Professor Jared Diamond, who invited us to re-understand and read the past, present and future of human society from a unique perspective with a series of works such as Guns, Germs and Steel; Professor Xiang Biao is one of the most internationally renowned anthropologists in China today, who has long been concerned about international and domestic immigration, labor and social issues, and his anthropological monograph "Global "Hunting" has won the long-standing Anthony Litz Prize in the international anthropological community. He is also very concerned about the social issues of China, India and the Third World, and is very active in public discussion in Chinese society.

In the coming time, we will discuss a range of issues such as the trajectory of human civilization, tradition and modernity, crisis and the future. Perhaps we can start with a very simple question—what drove Professor Diamond to do this extraordinarily daunting task in the first place, to write a book about human history, and what sustained you to write one book after another for decades?

Diamond: For me, I don't think it's a tough task. On the contrary, it is a pleasure.

Since I was 3 years old, my mother, a teacher, has taught me to read and write, write and draw in notebooks, and list countries, rivers, and animals. I have always been interested in languages and have also become interested in different ethnic groups as I travel around the world to work. Ask me why I write a book because it's the most enjoyable and fun thing I can do. However, I didn't start writing books to the public until 1987, when I was 50 years old. Until then, I had been working in the lab as a gallbladder physiologist. I am a world-renowned expert on gallbladders. I also study birds in New Guinea.

In 1987, my wife gave birth to our twin sons, and I became a father for the first time. People often talk about what will happen in the world, such as the rainforest will disappear in 2050 and the problems that the world will face in 2050. I was born in 1937, and by 2050 I'm 113 years old and definitely dead, so 2050 is an imaginary year for me. My child will be 63 by 2050, the prime of his life. I realized that my son's future depended not on the gallbladder, not on the birds of New Guinea, but on the state of the world, on the understanding of why different peoples in the world had different experiences.

So the birth of my son prompted me to move from gallbladder physiology to history, geography, anthropology, and the social sciences, and to writing books. I do write one book after another, and when I write a book that doesn't cover all the interesting things in the world, I consider writing the next one. Each of my books usually takes 4 to 7 years to write. So my most recent book, Upheaval, was published 3 years ago, in 2019. I'm just starting to write my next book, hopefully on my 90th birthday, 2027.

With different leaders, will the course of historical development change?

Diamond: I'm working on this book, and part of it is going to be kept secret for now. But I can tell you that it's about leadership. I have always been interested in the question of leaders, for example, have leaders played an important role in the course of historical development? If the leaders are different, will the course of historical development change?

There is an example of Adolf Hitler, the leader of the terrible Nazi Germany. In 1930, Hitler nearly died in a car accident, a heavy truck hit his car from the side, he was sitting in the passenger seat, and he was almost killed. That was 3 years before he came to power. If Hitler had died at that time, would there have been another World War II in Europe? Will there be another massacre that killed millions of people? One could argue that Hitler was an alien, evil, seductive man. Without Hitler, there would be no World War II or the Holocaust. But on the other hand, the signing of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I led to Germany likely to try to reverse the defeat of the First World War, Germany may still go to war again, and Germany has always had anti-Semitism. This is just one example, and historians are still debating whether leaders played an important role.

This is true in history, and it is also true in business. Bill Gates is different, Mark Zuckerberg is different, computers and social media wouldn't be different without Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg? Or in the world of sports, there are some famous sports coaches, such as at UCLA, where our basketball coach John Wooden is generally considered the greatest sports coach of all time, and UCLA has achieved great results. Would UCLA basketball be so successful without John Wooden?

Finally, in terms of religion, the important religious leader, Jesus Christ, founded the world religion, and Muhammad also founded the world religion. But Jesus Christ was in the Roman Empire at the time and was the most powerful governmental organization of his time, while Muhammad lived on the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century. If Jesus Christ or Muhammad had not been born, would others in the Roman Empire or others in the Arabian Peninsula have founded a world religion?

These examples illustrate the unanswered question of whether leaders influence the course of historical development. This interesting and important question will be the subject of my next book, which I hope will be published in China by then.

Host: Sounds very interesting, but it involves a very classic question – who shaped history? Is it structural factors or individual agency? Your book on leaders seems like a great way to discuss this big problem. I remember that when I was an undergraduate, I was very interested in social anthropology. I once chatted with a friend who was a computer scientist who worked in the IT industry. When I talked about my interest in social anthropology, he said, have you seen Guns, Germs and Steel? That's a very classic piece in the field. So, Jared, you can't imagine how popular your book is that even a computer scientist would read it.

Will the losers in history agree with the history written by the successful today?

Moderator: Teacher Xiang Biao, can you share your thoughts on Professor Jared Diamond's "History of Mankind" series?

Xiang Biao: Of course, I noticed that Jared's work was very popular all over the world, and I think it started with the book Guns, Germs and Steel, and with the subsequent publication of new books, his popularity has become even higher. I haven't specifically studied the acceptance of these books by Chinese readers, but I do know they are popular. I'd love to know how Chinese readers read these books. I'd also very much like to know, Jared, if you've noticed any difference in reader understanding in different countries or different industries.

I was very touched when I heard Jared tell us why he wrote these books and how he wrote them. It is clear that he wrote these books not for narrow academic purposes, but to address some of the fundamental problems facing us all during this critical period. That's why his vision is so broad. It is precisely because these questions are so real and so fundamental that they cannot be answered by any particular narrow discipline. In addition, he wrote these books because he has always been concerned about the future of future generations. As a result, this drive is much deeper and more powerful than purely academic career considerations or scientific curiosity in the narrow sense. I think that explains why these books have such a broad appeal. I would like to add that your books are important because they raise grand questions that need to be discussed, namely, how we understand history.

One more question for you, you may have asked many people, your friend In New Guinea, Yali, did he spark your interest in writing Guns, Germs and Steel? How did he finally understand what was written in the book?

I wonder how the losers in history read the history that always tells the history of the rulers. Can history also be understood as the history of struggle, the history of one side destroying the other? I would also like to suggest a small fragment of the book that I think is important for Chinese readers – how we understand Zheng He's voyage to the West, his voyage to East Africa. Is this a missed opportunity? Or is it a very wonderful example of global diplomacy?

It is often seen as a missed opportunity because of the excessive concentration of power in China at the time in the imperial court and because of the political struggles within the court at the time. As a result, Zheng He missed the opportunity to colonize Africa and failed to land in the Americas before Columbus. But can we define colonialism as the camera choice of history? So we have to look for another clue, one that is still hidden in human history. Of course, throughout history, if we look at it from the perspective of who was the ruler, who was the winner, who was the winner, colonialism was indeed a driving force. But can history be interpreted in a different way? Therefore, Zheng He was not a missed opportunity, it is an example that we can learn from today. Given China's position in the world today, I believe that this is an engaging debate that requires a collision of wisdom, and I think this discussion has very direct and far-reaching political implications.

A New Guinean question, asked each other

Diamond: You asked a lot of interesting questions, and I'll answer a few of them.

Yali is a New Guinean man, whom I met by chance in 1972. I was walking on the beach on an island and a New Guinean came up with me and he was a very curious man who asked me all sorts of questions, about birds, about volcanoes. He wanted to know how much I got paid to study birds, and then he asked me questions about New Guineans and the history of New Guinea. Finally, his eyes sparkled and he turned to me, and he said, "Why did you white people come to New Guinea and bring so much goods and material wealth, but we New Guineans didn't make these things famous?" "We looked at each other and I knew exactly what he was thinking and he knew what I was thinking. He knows that New Guineans are at least as smart as Europeans, and I've been working in New Guinea for 8 years, and I know New Guineans are at least as smart as Europeans.

Why, then, did Europeans come to New Guinea with writing and metal tools, as well as governmental organizations, while traditional New Guinea did not? It was 1972, and I didn't know what the answer was. It took me 15 years to figure out the answer I gave in Guns, Bacteria and Steel. But I never saw Ari again, so I couldn't answer him in person.

As for the difference between Chinese history and European history, this is an attractive and important issue. China was first unified in 221 BC and has remained in a unified state for most of the time since. Europe has never been unified, not even the military geniuses Octavian, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, no one has been able to unify Europe. Today's European Union unites Europe to some extent, but it is not as strong as China's unification. Why are there these differences in the history of China and Europe?

To me, as a geographer and historian, naturally, the answer seems to be that geography plays a key role. You can imagine a map of China and a map of Europe. China's coastline is smooth, and China does not have a large peninsula. Europe's coastline is very tortuous, with the Italian Peninsula (Apennines), the Greek Peninsula (Balkan Peninsula), the Spanish Peninsula (Iberian Peninsula), and the Danish Peninsula (Jutland), each of which developed into an independent society, with independent languages and independent states. But China does not have these peninsulas. There are some big islands in Europe – Great Britain is a big island, Ireland is a big island, Crete and Sardinia are big islands. Each of these European islands developed a different society, often speaking a different language. China does not have those big islands.

Speaking of rivers, China has two major rivers, the Yellow River and the Yangtze River, flowing in parallel, and the land between the two rivers is low, so the Yellow River and the Yangtze River have been connected by canals very early in history. But the rivers of Europe, because the Alps are located in the middle of Europe, the rivers of Europe flow radially like spokes of bicycle wheels. The Rhine flows to the northwest, the Elbe to Berlin, the Rhône to the southwest, and the Danube to the east. The rivers of Europe divided Europe into different societies. China's rivers connect China.

So, in my opinion, the differences between Chinese history and European history are partly related to geography, but I think they are also related to agriculture. Agriculture in Europe depended on wheat, and Chinese agriculture initially depended in part on rice and millet before wheat was introduced to China. However, growing wheat is very different from growing rice. Wheat farmers can go it their own way – they simply throw the wheat seeds out and wait for the wheat to be harvested. But this is not the case with rice, and farmers who grow rice need to irrigate the rice, so they must cooperate with others to run an irrigation system.

So in my opinion, China's agricultural system requires people to cooperate. Europe's agricultural system allows or requires people to become individualists. But we've found another empirical example in China — in some parts of China, wheat is grown, not rice. I've also heard and read articles arguing that Chinese in wheat-growing areas tend to be more individualistic than Chinese in rice-growing areas.

This is an incendiary answer, but it shows that the history of China and Europe is very different. That fascinates me. In my book Guns, Germs and Steel, there is an entire chapter about China. In my book Collapse, there is also a whole chapter on China, trying to understand why Chinese and European history has taken such different paths.

You can't see the island at a glance, so you lack the motivation to sail far

Host: I think one of the main common denominators in the work of both of them is the issue of fluidity and interconnectedness. Jared, your work, including Guns, Germs, and Steel, not only emphasizes the flow of visible subjects, such as people, ships, and steel, but also mentions the tiny and almost invisible things, such as the flow of seeds, viruses, and germs, which play an important role in understanding the prosperity of a civilization. So please share with us your views on how migration or migration, especially in the early history of humanity, has provided an important impetus to human civilization and prosperity.

Diamond: Immigration is an interesting topic, and immigrants behave differently around the world. You mentioned the example of Zheng He's voyage to the West, where in the 15th century, a fleet of treasure ships from China arrived off the coast of East Africa. It seems as if these fleets are about to bypass the Cape of Good Hope in Africa and reach Europe. But the fleet returned. Why? Why have Europe's fleets been sailing forward? As a geographer, I think again of a number of geographical factors, including why people have different immigration impulses.

Let's take China as an example. From prehistory to before the colonial expansion of Europe in the 15th century, the greatest immigrants were farmers from the southern coast of China. They first immigrated to the island of Taiwan, where they derived the Austronesian language family. These Chinese farmers immigrated to the Philippines in 2000 BC, then to Indonesia, New Guinea, Fiji, Hawaii, where they became Polynesians, and then to Easter Island and then to New Zealand.

In contrast, Africans never emigrate, even to the island of Madagascar. The first to reach madagascar appear to be Indonesians, not Africans. There are also the indigenous peoples of North and South America, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas have never sailed to China, nor have they ever sailed to Europe. Why? I think part of the reason is that if you stand on the coast of Southeast Asia, if you stand in Singapore and look out, you see Sumatra. Looking out from Sumatra, you will see Java. And from Java, you can see Lombok. From Lombok, you see Flores Island, from Flores island you see Timor Island, and from Timor Island, although you can't see Australia, you can see the dust cloud of The Australian fire. Then from New Guinea, you see the islands of New Britain, and New Ireland, as well as the Solomon Islands. In other words, the presence of islands stimulated people to build ships because they knew there was a place to go.

In Africa, North america and South America, there are no islands in sight. In Europe, you stand on the coastline and you can see some of the islands, from France, you can see or loom the island of Britain, and of course, from the coast of France, you can see Corsica. And from Greece, you can see or feel Crete. Therefore, in my opinion, the existence of islands stimulated the colonization of Europeans and stimulated the migration of peasants in southern China, while the absence of islands stimulated the migration of Africans and the indigenous peoples of North and South America.

These are all geographical reasons, but there are also cultural reasons. My understanding is that in 15th-century China, people thought China had everything we wanted. Why are we sending out fleets? Those fleets will only bring us back white giraffes. Those fleets are expensive to build. Why waste so much money on white giraffes? And Europe needed fleets to bring back spices, because the meat of Europe at that time, because there was no refrigerator, the smell and taste were terrible, and the Europeans needed spices to cover up the bad smell of meat, so the Europeans eventually sent a fleet to India and then to Southeast Asia.

That's part of the reason I see people in different parts of the world seeing differences in migration.