Talk:First Opium War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] british opium
Would be interesting to know from where the British obtained the opium to trade to China. Tempshill 19:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They established large plantations in their Indian possessions, making India the largest producer of Opium in the world. Lisiate 20:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 is slightly misleading. Did Europe really have trouble finding goods to import to China because China was so well-developed? As the outcome of the war suggests, Europe was more developed. There certainly weren't such troubles. --68.77.118.232 23:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 23:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There was definitely a lack of demand for European trade goods, although I doubt that China's level of development was the cause. We should remember that even well into the 20th Century the vast majority of Chinese lived in rural areas.
Perhaps it is also helpful to note that China was almost entirely self-sustained in its own life style and economic system, even though it was a less developed life-style compare to Europe at that time. Many products of a developed society are also more useful in a developed society. For instance, one might imagine that clocks would have been highly in demand after they were introduced to China. But Chinese society has long since developed a system for time keeping in their own way, which was less efficient and accurate, but nevertheless satisfied the demand of the society at that time. Accurate time keeping really only became necessary after industrialization. So it is understandable that nobody wanted to buy clocks other than the very wealthy and powerful who had the urge to own precious things. Of course, the trade restriction Ming Dynasty imposed has kept the entire nation unexposed to anything the West invented. It is hard to miss something one never had.
It should also be noted that opium importation was undertaken primarily by private individuals, including many American merchants. The British government became involved fairly late in the proceedings, when it essentially ratified the actions of the opium merchants and seized the opportunity to force open Chinese ports.
This article isn't exactly encyclopedic. Ningbo isn't "nearby" Guangzhou, it's a few hundred kilometers away in another province (Zhejiang, then maybe known as Chekiang). Please move to rectify this, anyone.
Thanks
[edit] POV
The sentence:
The conflict began a long history of Chinese suspicion of Western society that still lingers today in East Asia.
in the first paragraph, seems based on speculation rather than source. Does the author have any survey or statistical facts to support that statement? Otherwise please remove it. It skews the whole tone of the subsequent article. There are no persons alive who remember the Opium Wars, thus while interpretations of history may affect current Chinese thinking, it can only be a partial factor, one far outweighed for example by Cold War diplomacy and modern Western attitudes.
Skewed Wikipedia entries are also not going to help resolve any such issues.
Also the whole paragraph beginning:
However, in July 1839 rioting British sailors destroyed a temple...
is not the best English and would benefit from being extensively rewritten.
[edit] Ping-pong authorities
Please advise what "Ping-pong authorities" at the beginning of the 5th paragraph refers to. Thanks.--Tonyho 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese motivations
"Alarmed with the reverse in silver flow after opium trade took hold, the Qing government attempted to end this trade on public health grounds, since numerous opium addicts were appearing in trading ports throughout China."
This sentence suggests rather cynically and quite possibly in racist fashion that the "public health grounds" were pretextual rather than justified in fact. While I do not have the specific facts at hand, it does not take much reasoning to understand that this was not so. Britain had the explicit aim of reversing the balance of trade from their insatiable demand for Chinese tea and did so. When you further consider that the all trade was funneled into discrete locales, the magnitude of the problem and the government's right to address it should be patently obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.146.199 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 July 2006
I just came to ask the same thing: What is the source for this (yes, cynical and possibly racist) attribution of motive? The Chinese authorities seized something like 2 million pounds of opium in 1839—and while I don't have population figures for the 19th-century Qing empire handy, illicit consumption of that much opium would indicate a serious public health problem for any country in the world even today. Perhaps the Daoguang Emperor was really concerned with widespread addiction to a harmful drug. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MILHIST
I am placing this as Start class; it is an excellent start. It's of a fair length, and offers some details. But for such an important and complex topic, this article could afford to be much longer. The actual events of the war are hidden in "Background" - the entire article progresses from "Background" to "Settlement" with no section for the actual war itself. A better, clearer, description of which battles were fought could also help. Lumping all the fighting into one paragraph just doesn't work. The introduction in particular could also use some expansion. I'm glad that it mentions the overall historical significance of the war - that's crucial to the average reader. So, yes, general expansion, and if possible, pictures. LordAmeth 12:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Opium
What were the social conditions that made opium so attractive? Obviously Western intervention forced opium to be widely available but why was it so attractive to the general populace? I've never heard a real answer to this question. Jztinfinity 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a history of opium use in China and Asia in general, in the form of madak, until 1729. Opium happened to also cause very pleasing effects to the user and at the same time caused debilitating problems when frequently used recreationally, not to mention the problem of dependency in a time when supply was controlled via the British monopoly. Imagine if tea caused the same effects, it would've wreaked havoc on the British, as even in its largely harmless state the taxation problem and demand problems it was causing was already becoming enormous. Karajanis 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That explanation is easier, but simpler still; why did distilled alcohol become a social problem? Cigarettes? Crack cocaine? Methampethamines? In all of these cases, the answer is that addictive substances became technologically easier to produce and distribute. 140.247.163.157 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Puzzled by article
The article leaves some important points unclear. The first sentence says the war was fought with the aim of forcing China to import British opium. The more detailed account doesn't support that though. Either the first sentence should be changed or material added to fill out the narrative.
The more detailed account says that the Chinese and British couldn't agree on various issues, so some British official tried to establish a boycott and wasn't altogether successful. Then there was fighting that started with British attempts to enforce the boycott against British dissidents, apparently in Chinese waters. So was the war an attempt to enforce a boycott that snowballed? And what were the demands behind the boycott? The article doesn't say.
It appears that the Chinese were annoyed because the British wouldn't let them try some British murderers and the British were annoyed because the Chinese had confiscated 2.500,000 pounds of British opium. The account of the settlement says that the British got extraterritoriality and compensation for the confiscated opium. It says nothing though about future opium imports or why the Chinese couldn't have forbidden them. So if the war was fought to force China to import British opium it appears from the article to have been a failure even though the British were victorious from a military standpoint. Is that right?
Jim Kalb 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Very confusing at times, especially on matters regarding to Charles Elliot and the British boycott. I don't know much about the war myself, so it would be very helpful if somebody clarified in the article. =] Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I get confused on the opening of hostilities. Are the British ships attacking the East India ships? (The poor English undermines the credibility of the article.)
- The sentences "In one isolated incident, in 1818, the Laurel carried word to Sydney of a US ship laden with Opium and treasure which was invaded by Chinese pirates. The crew of the US vessel had all been killed, but for the escaping first mate, who later identified the pirates to the authorities." Is rather unclear in its purpose and its meaning. Is the "Laurel" the name of a ship, the title of an official, or something else entirely? Also, what does it have to do with the rest of the paragraph that ostensibly discusses the state of British trade with China and the ramifications of the importation of opium? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.203.161 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- I suspect that this incident is included as an attempt to tie the U.S. to the Opium war. (While in China, I had some teachers tell me that the U.S. had attacked China.)
I have no academic, history background. However, my understanding of the War is related trade rights and Silver. As a national body, China had no interest in things outside China. The trade currency was Silver and this put pressure on Europe which could not mine enough for trade balance. Meanwhile, at a corporate, individual level, Europe was successful in addicting many to Opium, making it lucrative. However, Chinese authorities banned the import of the produce, putting pressure on Silver. The result of the war was that China's ability to restrict the importation was denied.
'The Laurel' was a ship that sailed from Guangzoh to Sydney in 1818. On board were the explorer John Blaxland and the first known Chinese Migrant to Australia, Mak Sai Ying. The ship bore news of the incident regarding the US trade vessel, highlighting the nature of opium trade and tensions experienced at sea at that time. Significantly, Mak Sai Ying returned to China for five years, possibly working import exports, and returning to Sydney two years before the first Opium War. The nature of his Chinese connections and family are currently not known.
I have a natural curiosity regarding Mak Sai Ying, having learned of his existance only recently. DDB 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] British history
firstly, off topic sorry how do i identify who is the author of a wikipedia article
and how do i contact them
and how can i start one myself
and if i do, can any of you help me start something on the hypocrisy of
our 'history' retellings even here?
i kid you not, although i do believe it, it is definately not the impression i recall being left with on the topic from my schooling i knew opium was a drug, but i think i just tuned out and probably just assumed we were the victim and they were the drug dealers we were fighting like we claim to do today i appear to have been a great example of how we want to believe our own propaganda and reading this fascinating article only seemed to remind me of my personal failings, though i doubt im the worst
i would LOVE to help work on an article or project that illuminated a FAIR and unbiased view on history here on wikipedia especially admitting to our own hypocrisy first so we had some right to attack other people's 'propaganda'
and can it be proven that Queen Victoria knew we were fighting a war over our right to profit from selling harmful drugs to someone else?
or was this another thing where a leader gives someone a knighthood or award without truly knowing what for or the true good or harm done on either side?
amazingBefuddler 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
ps...is there anyway to 'underline' words here? lol
[edit] Odd remarks
There are many strange remarks in this article. Here's one..
"Britain had been on the gold standard since the 18th century, so it had to purchase silver from continental Europe to supply the Chinese appetite for silver,"
The author seems to be implying some sort of causation or logical link between the British monetary scheme and the sourcing of the silver for trade with China. I completely fail to see any link. As there is, and was, negligible silver mining in Britain, silver would obviously have to be purchased from Europe or South America in order to trade it with China in exchange for tea or other Chinese goods. The Chinese prefered to be paid in silver for their export goods. To buy things in China, the British would first need to acquire silver from other countries because they mined none of their own. This would be the case, regardless of whether Britain used a gold standard or a silver standard or any other monetary arrangement in its own economy. Eregli bob (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph detailing the English 'as the biggest drug trafficking criminal organisation in the world' is beyond comprehension. Given that Opium was not illegal in Britain, and much of Europe - seen as a beneficial painkiller it is a sweeping statement that just retriatriates the usual views put forward by the prohibitionist missionaries of the 19th century, demonising opium to make it into a political tool. People choose to smoke - China had a huge history of it. The drug is not active forcing itself upon the passive person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.210.199 (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
