‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows(news.virginia.edu) |
‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows(news.virginia.edu) |
This from the original article seems to support your "invasion stopped at Yangtze" theory more than a "rice/wheat divide" theory. Rice is grown north of the Yangtze also and the border seems to be on the hills between provinces such as Hubei and Henan.
[1] Highly recommended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_and_Peoples
a) Someone thinks so many people can be divided into just two groups
b) the idea that validating an assumption should also automatically validate the reason. People in the north might be more individualistic than in the south, and yes they grow wheat and not rice but that doesn't mean one depends on the other. It just doesn't seem all too scientific to confuse correlation with cause.
North and South Chinese have been obviously different for many centuries. One of my favorite stories about this concerns the development of affirmative action in the late 14th / early 15th century:
> In 1370, the first Emperor of the Dynasty, Chu Yüan-chang, who expelled the Mongols in 1368, reinstituted the great Civil Service Examinations, which had been suspended by the Mongols. In 1371, 75% of the degrees from the national examination had gone to candidates from the South of China. This displeased the Emperor, who believed, with many traditionalists, that Northerners were morally more worthy -- from the area where Chinese civilization had begun. The examinations were thus suspended until 1385, but then the geographical division of those who passed did not change. At a special Palace examination in 1397, all of the 52 candidates who passed were Southerners. Borrowing from the Josef Stalin school of bureaucracy, the Emperor had two of the examiners executed. In a subsequent retesting, all the successful candidates were Northerners.
> By 1425 it was decided that places in the national examinations would be reserved by region, with 35% for the North, 55% for the South, and 10% for some places in the middle.
(sourced from http://www.friesian.com/discrim.htm)
When we say things like, "The African American population in the US is materially disadvantaged.", that statement does generalize across many individuals. But it's also potentially very useful or actionable.
Also, anyone who says they judge people as individuals is probably bullshitting to the max. It sounds cognitively overburdening and wasteful.
However, I think it is worth pointing out that the "rice theory" in the virginia.edu post isn't particularly new.
In 'Outliers' (which came out six years ago) Gladwell writes extensively about the "rice theory" (and Gladwell may have relied on prior research by other folks)
He writes about rice farmers in southern China who value hard work, co-operation with each other, planning etc and attributes that to the "rice theory"
Gladwell also contrasts these rice farmers with European farmers. Chinese farmers typically were entrepreneurial, but European peasants were generally low-paid slaves/workers of some aristocratic landlord.
He also contrasts them with French farmers who did virtually nothing in winter, Russians who came up with proverbs like "If God doesn't bring it, the earth will not give it" etc.
1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25538-how-your-ancesto...
A theory that something requires more cooperation in the east vs. west and what applies gradually and across the whole Eurasia continent - what can it be?. I think there must be something else beyond mere cooperation behind the phenomenon of the "a person is nothing" principle getting stronger with move toward the east.
In the north, you are locked in home in winter, while in south you get to go around and meet more people.
Chinese civilization is essentially the story of intensely farming a flood plain. But China has two such plains: the Yellow River defines the north, and the Yangtze defines the south.
Do you have an english-language source for this? I'd be very interested to read about it.