Yes it was. It was called the Middle Kingdom. Everyone else was a barbarian whose proper role was to pay tribute.
This is the last sentence of the first paragraph of your learned wiki source: "The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's 1978 invasion and occupation of Cambodia, which ended the reign of the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge." You have no insight into the Han. It helps to live with a Han.
Already is a "global giant". But it has not got that way by dominating other countries. It has got that way by peacefully investing in countries who have what it wants and are willing to play along. "Bowing to knees" is what America wants. You have your giants muddled up.
China has become powerful by out thinking and out gaming everyone else. Peace has nothing to do with it.
Let me rephrase that. No, it was not untrue back in the 15th and 16th centuries to call China an empire. But we have moved on 500 years since then.
If that is so, it has done so without going to war with countries who resources it covets. With vast irony, it appears the US has to station troops in Australia while the Australians are in the process of selling most of what they own willingly to China.
China is not backing a Syrian takeover of its neighbours' territories. The US, on the other hand, is backing an Israeli takeover of Palestinian territories. Which makes America imperialistic and China not. I'm sure you can understand the difference.
You need to step up your game. Do you know what Arunachal Pradesh is? China and India have massed their forces along the Himalayas. They even shoot at each other. Do you know what the Aksai Chin is? Do you know what happened to the peoples of Tibet and East Turkestan? Do you know what is happening in the South China Sea? America and Australia should have nothing to do with each other except for minimal trade.
the US gets no benefit out of allowing israel the will to put up their moronic settlements so i do not see any imperialistc tendencies involved with that.... that is just some of the moronic faults of the U.S. Policy overseas. imperialistic, from my understanding, usually gets the country something of benefit... their is no benefit to it, it simply makes more people pissed at us.
The Chinese Navy seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam by force. China has turned North Korea into a colony.
I see you are fond of the past. The Chinese invasion of Tibet was 60 years ago. Iraq, in contrast, was 8 years ago. And it seems the US now has Iran lined up.
The "market" will decide the labor issue. Isn't that what the right wing likes to proclaim? I thought the right wing wanted "government out of the way" anyway? Why do the profiteers need to have the ability to pay below poverty wages? The product is too expensive paying a decent wage? Oh well! Don't buy it! (the market and all). Perhaps instead of always trying to reduce labor for extra profit, they might try trimming their obscene profit margin first...imagine that huh?
From a societal standpoint it's cheaper to pay Americans decent wages than to have Mexicans work here.
Half a century? Then there's this, as the Americans spread their troops like a plague across the Pacific:.
Wrong answer. Han Chinese immigrants have been pouring into Tibet for two decades as part of the Chinese Communist Party's policy of Sinicizing Tibet. The Han are now the majority in Tibet. Tibetan culture is dying. The Chinese Communist Party even appoints the Panchen Lama and will appoint the replacement to the existing Dalai Lama when he dies. The Tibetans have been totally crushed. Are you unaware of the way the Han put down the Tibetan riots two years ago? Are you unaware of the self-immolation by Tibetan Buddhist monks going on now as a protest against Han domination? My wife's cousin was once stationed in Lhasa. Tibetans can't even look Han in the eye without getting a beating.