Sino-American Relations Since 1776

Georgetown University
HIST 1099

Semester: Fall 2023
Time: Friday, 1–3:30 p.m.
Classroom: Capitol Campus (CALL) #160
Instructor: Jeffrey C. H. Ngo
Email: cn460@georgetown.edu

Overview

No bilateral relationship today is more pivotal than that between China and the United States. Hardly a day goes by without news headlines on everything from spy balloons and a proposed TikTok ban to semiconductor-trade restrictions and possible origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Pundits even predict an impending showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Yet dubious ideas about China abound in both American academic and public discourses, endorsed by those who see it favorably or unfavorably: it boasted five millennia of “uninterrupted” history; far-flung regions — seized nevertheless by recent conquests and reconquests — had belonged to it “since ancient times”; it was always cut off from the outside world; a “tributary system” governed its ties to neighbors; it fell victim to Western imperialists who forced “modernity” and “unequal treaties” on it; centralized and hierarchical rule was more fitting to its tradition; it lifted almost a billion people out of poverty; it always desired peace and stability, not hegemony.

Our introductory course seeks to complicate those platitudes by stretching back two and a half centuries. As Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, the Qianlong emperor’s bannermen were emerging victorious against the Jinchuan Hill peoples in a major military expedition to Sichuan. Sometimes, a campaign like this would be one of many pacifying missions to tighten control in frontiers like Xinjiang that had already been absorbed into the Qing realm; others would be external interventions in Korea, Burma, or Nepal. And by 1789, he was busy trying to reinstate his preferred monarch in Vietnam when George Washington took the oath of office in New York. The Manchu court presided over not a Chinese dynasty but an early-modern empire across the Eurasian continent, more than tenfold the size of the young republic. This was not well understood in the Age of Enlightenment, however, with men of letters portraying an imagined “China” to make their own arguments about Europe. Their Orientalism, in turn, influenced the Founding Fathers and beyond.

Rather than treat the rise of the two superpowers as predestined, we reject the premise that China and the U.S. are coherent, unified polities across time and space. In fact, their respective nationalisms that developed throughout the 19th century may have far more to do with each other than we think. On one hand, how did Manchus annex the Chinese mainland, seize Taiwan, and branch out deep into Inner Asia to cement a cosmopolitan imperial regime? How did loyalists and opponents of the Qing Empire, in competing ways, envisage a robust nation-state in response to existential threats, including from Europe, Japan, and the U.S.? And how, on the other hand, did a loose federation of 13 former British North American colonies begin to push westward in the name of Manifest Destiny? How did “These United States” become “The United States” after the Civil War, facilitated in part by Asian immigrant laborers reaching California — who would subsequently be depicted as the Yellow Peril — and a transcontinental railroad?

The “American” part of our title seems straightforward, but recent scholarship has reframed the U.S. as inherently expansionist, venturing farther and wider across the Pacific since 1898 to occupy the Philippines, Hawai’i, Alaska, Guam, and elsewhere. The “Sino” part is still more complex, considering the Qing collapse in 1912 paved the way for numerous successor states, whether recognized or contested: Republican and Communist China, Northern and Southern Mongolia, Tibet/Qinghai, the East Turkestan Republics, Manchukuo, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The U.S. approach to these places and their inhabitants was often inconsistent, as policies shifted to accommodate the broader international context. While we devote considerable attention to diplomatic history, we are ultimately interested in exchanges between peoples. Caleb Cushing, Prince Kung, John Hay, Soong Mei-Ling, Henry Kissinger, the Dalai Lama, and Nancy Pelosi matter to us, but so, too, do merchants, missionaries, novelists, tycoons, soldiers, musicians, journalists, ping-pong players, scientists, economists, refugees, and human-rights activists.

Assignments

  • Presentation (10%)
    Prepare and deliver a 15-minute class presentation. The actual plan depends on course enrollment and individual preference. For your allotted week, summarize key points of the readings. Look for arguments, approaches, and a memorable scene or two. This exercise trains you to read critically and helps to launch the discussion. To do a better job, you might wish to at least skim through the introduction and conclusion of the book from which a particular chapter is selected. Contact the instructor if you need access.

  • Short Essays (10×4=40%)
    One week before the deadline, you will receive two prompts. Both require substantial engagement with different types of primary-source documents. Pick one to answer in a short essay, which you must limit strictly to no more than 1,000 words. Read the instructions, in particular the guiding questions, carefully. You do this four times in total, after the end of each of the first four modules. Due in class on Sept. 22, Oct. 13, Nov. 3, and Dec. 1.

  • Final Project (20%)
    Imagine yourself as a foreign-policy aide on Capitol Hill to your favorite member of the House or the Senate. Your task is to produce your own primary-source document: a comprehensive memorandum to brief your boss — ahead of, say, a committee hearing, sit-down media interview, or town hall with constituents — on a timely issue of your choice pertaining to Sino-American relations today. It can be about immigration, trade, intellectual property, supply chains, transportation, education, espionage, sanctions, public health, transnational repression, and so on or and so forth. Provide a summary first. What bills have been put forward in the current or last Congress? What progress has been made, if any? What executive actions have President Joe Biden and his administration taken? Then historicize the political landscape. Are there precedents to reference? How does each side of the debate invoke their (mis)reading of the past to justify their positions? Last but not least, conclude with a recommendation. Where should your boss stand? Why? Aim for a final word count of about 2,000 words. Due at 11:59 p.m. by email on Dec. 18.

  • Attendance and Participation (30%)
    Show up to every class. Contribute actively and respectfully to discussions. You are allowed one unexcused absence over the course of the semester without penalty. Beyond that, please request an excused absence from the instructor before class and make it up by writing a one-page response to the week’s readings, or this portion of your final grade will be lowered.

Grading Scale

  • Excellent
    A: 93–100%; A-: 90–92%

  • Good
    B+: 87–89%; B: 83–86%; B-: 80–82%

  • Adequate
    C+: 77–79%; C: 73–76%; C-: 70–72%

  • Minimum Passing
    D+: 67–69%; D: 60–66%

Core Curriculum

  • University Undergraduate: Engaging Diversity — Global

  • College of Arts and Sciences: History Focus (1099)

  • School of Foreign Service: HIST 1099

Schedule

** = recommended readings

Module I: From Imagination to Contact, 1776–1855

Module II: Opening Doors, Shutting Doors, 1856–1901

Module III: Skepticism and Uncertainty, 1902–70

Module IV: Strategic Engagement, 1971–2011

Module V: Slow Decoupling, 2012–23

A full syllabus — including additional sections on leaning goals, policies and expectations, academic integrity, accommodations, Title IX statement, Title IX pregnancy modifications and adjustments, and other resources — is posted on Georgetown 360 and available upon request. Current students should also consult MyAccess and Canvas for more information.