If I had argued similarly that the American state has a history of brutality, which it does (Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, for-profit prison labor, etc) am I subsequently arguing that Americans themselves are cruel? Of course not. Self-centered, detached, unaware of their constitutional privileges to change things or unwilling to use them, perhaps. But certainly not cruel.
I would welcome a discussion about the nuances of Chinese dynasties, individual emperors, interdynastic states of affairs, and so on, but come on, but let’s at least have a conversation in good faith, ok?
Perhaps a point to start with: individuals with very little power compared to the state have little to no say in the state’s affairs. If the state is brutal and cruel, how much of that is their responsibility? Could they be blamed for political inactivity if it only brings suffering on their household? Are they complicit in th activities of the state if they merely want to make money and live a comfortable life with their friends and families, given that they pay taxes which are used for wars and state suppression?
It's every bit as ignorant to say that "perhaps" hundreds of millions of Americans are unaware, detached, etc. as it is to proclaim that they're cruel. Making such broad sweeping judgments about such a vast number of people, is universally a very poor approach to discussion.
There is only so much that people can do to change their world around them, even in a democracy.
Being an American, I have license to make generalizations about the people I have lived my whole life around. I certainly couldn’t say the same for, say, Chinese individuals, and my other comments in this thread read as much. I draw my conclusions about my fellow Americans from my own experiences and interactions.
I think this is very accurate.
Many bureaucratic structures, such as the general structure of government and military, withstood the test of time throughout dynasties and interdynastic periods. For a state that governed huge areas with significant diversity in ethnicities and languages, that is very impressive! If it aint broke don’t fix it, you know?
But those same structures were very much top-down methods of management, with little room for dissent. It’s not as if all Chinese (which is a very broad definition because there are many many millions of Chinese citizens who are not Han) got to sit down together every few years or decades and decide what kind of state and society they wanted to live in.
The vast majority of all of humanity largely had the structure of their societies decided for them by the ghosts of the past and the structures that survived. We are always swimming through the inertia of our pasts.
Anyway, I hope that is more instructive of the point I am trying to make. Ethnicity doesn’t just poof into a structure of government, in a China or anywhere or anywhen else.
Edit: funny you mention France after your edit, because I was considering saying that Europe as a whole before 1945 was no picnic either. That’s why my ancestors - from four different countries, no less - got up and left for America. Nevertheless, the period of time between WWII and now is the longest Western Europe has gone without a war since the time of Rome. That’s of course not to say that Western Europeans are inherently warlike. Peasants don’t get to choose the wars their lords and kings send them off to fight. It’s quite remarkable how quickly things can change sometimes.
In either direction. Something we would all do well to bear in mind these days in the West.