English dominance internationally lasted about 200 years - dominance as in being markedly the best - and even then it was not always stable. The Chinese economy throughout the Tang occupied 70% of the world Economy - China has consistently had a population larger than all of Europe put together - it still remains larger than all of the "west" put together.
In the early days of Empire, Asia was uncontrolled. The big players for the Americas were Spanish and Portuguese - at that time also linked to the Austrian throne, as Charles the 5th had major titles throughout Europe as a whole. The dutch in terms of a Merchant empire were almost a century ahead of the British, the biggest difference is they in many places weren't trying to repopulate or depopulate, but merely assert control and make money - but that is another matter.
the British have been drinking Chinese - then later Ceylon Tea - for centuries, using Porcelain just as long, and importing culture for thousands of years. China in contrast got its biggest dumping of cultural influx in 300AD or so, and has been more influential than influenced, relatively speaking. In letters, most definitely so.
In Economic terms China has been rolling ahead of the world for most of recorded history, and certainly from the Han through the Mongol invasion. England is a late player that never really solidified its grip on the world the way China did.
To make this such a cut and paste "easy" argument is to just show a lack of knowledge of any culture but one's own (Mr. Atheist being from the Common Wealth).

