Blog#15 - Morality of the Opium Wars

This blog has been one of the hardest to write b/c it seems that wherever I look to for info - books, online sources, etc. - they have pretty much the same stuff. Part of me wonders if this is because few Westerners have written extensively on this subject. Another reason might be that there may be few Chinese sources available to the West given the current nature of China's closed society. If that is the case, maybe what is happening is that when historians write about this subject, they repeat the same info over and over.

The basics of the Opium Wars (1839-42) seem to be that:

1. The British East India Company needed tea, silk, porcelain and other goods from China;


2. China wasn't very interested in Western goods - basically, "thanks, but no thanks."


3. This created an imbalance of trade (or trade deficit) with the British and the Chinese.


*The Chinese were used to being paid in silver from earlier dealings w/ the Spanish and the Portugeuse, but the British were on the gold standard and had to buy their silver from other European countries at an increased price.


4. In order to solve this trade deficit, Britain began importing opium from Indian traders in Calcutta. However, the Chinese emperor in 1729 banned the sale and smoking of opium, so the British had to resort to smuggling it.


5. In the 1760s, the British EIC gained a monopoly over the production and monopoly of opium, cutting out the trader in Calcutta (in essence, paying the Indian farmers to grow it, buying it from them, and then smuggling it into China when purchasing tea and silk).


6. When the Chinese struck back and destroyed EIC warehouses full of opium, the EIC cried foul to the British government who then attacked the Chinese for daring to protect their people from drugs (this last part is my own emphasis / sarcasm).

7. After the Chinese lost this series of battles, they were forced to sign unequal treaties and give up Hong Kong as well.



Here are some of my questions that kept popping up as I read through the material:


1. Why did the British sell opium to the Chinese? Was it just the Chinese or was it the Indians and other SE Asian peoples as well? Were some British addicted as well?


2. Why did the British government go to war with the Chinese when the Chinese were trying to stop this awful trade from addicting their people? Didn't this mean that the British gov't. approve of this trade, and by extension approve of addicting thousands of people to opium?


3. Why couldn't the Chinese stop the British from smuggling in the drug? What were the Chinese officials' roles in allowing or stopping the trade?


4. Was this opium war really a war over getting access to the Chinese markets so that the British (and other Western nations later) could sell their cheap goods? I ask this b/c of the terms of the Treaty of Nanking signed in 1842; the British didn't demand to sell more opium, they asked for access to more ports (including Hong Kong) and better trading rights.


So, when the whole thing is said and done, what can we learn from this? (Pick two of the following questions to answer)


1. Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal? Why or why not?


2. Should the British government be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago? Why or why not? It gave Hong Kong back to China at the end of the "100 year lease" in 1997


3. If the British East India Company still existed today, should it be held responsible for its actions? Why or why not? What could be done to it?


4. Can you think of any examples in recent times when a country has gone to war for economic / business reasons? Explain.

200 words, due Tuesday, February 22, 2010.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm - Asia for Educators: Opium Wars and Foreign Encroachment

Blog #7 - What obligations do wealthy nations have?

"Coketown... was a town of red brick, or of brick that would have been red if the smoke and ashes had allowed it; but as matters stood, it was a town of unnatural red and black like the painted face of a savage. It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal in it, and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next."

Charles Dickens, Hard Times.


As we're studying the social impact of the industrial revolution in Europe, the chapter brings up some interesting ideas about the social impact of the huge expansion of industry upon a rural society. Among the major things that happened in Britain between 1760 and the mid 1850s were:


1. Many farmers were kicked off the land they'd farmed for generations, so they moved to the cities to find jobs where living conditions were horrid;

2. Many jobs were dangerous, dehumanizing and boring - no longer was there any variety with regards to the seasons or weather, changes to due to chance or innovation, but just repetition;

3. In some of the poorest places in Britain, children as young as 5 worked in mines and other dangerous places;

4. Wages were low because much of the profit was reinvested by the owners / managers into newer and improved machines (which could, in the foreseeable future, put the same workers out of work);

5. Since power sources were continually improved (but Britain had practically used up all of its charcoal - trees), coal-burning engines led to pollution which covered the land, air and water.

The British aristocracy didn't feel obligated to help the poor, and so many people fell through the cracks. When America, France, Germany and other European countries industrialized, they made many of the same mistakes that Britain had done. Could they have benefited from Great Britain's wisdom and experience as the leader of the industrial revolution?

As one of the world's leaders in industry and technology, the United States and many of the western nations can help China and India benefit from their experience. But should they? Are they obligated to do so? Why? Here's a few questions to consider when answering this question:

1. What are the benefits from helping out China and India install greener energy sources (than we had used when we industrialized 50-100 years ago) compared to not helping them out? Each country has 4-5x the population of the U.S. which equals that many more consumers, polluters, energy consumers, etc. The world is already running out of oil...

2. Why should we help the competition? Both countries can each produce more engineers and doctors in one year than the U.S. can in ten just based on the size of the population. Plus, American companies outsource work to India, so we want to help them be better because...?

3. Can the United States continue to risk its financial and military security by being so dependent on foreign oil (specifically going to war in the Middle East to protect the biggest source of the stuff in the world)? On the surface, this might not seem like it deals with China, India and other developing nations, but we're all competing for the same energy sources. Importing so much oil from this region forces us to make hard choices about our future. Can we continue to risk American lives b/c we haven't developed alternative fuel sources yet?

4. What happens if either of these countries develops a new source of energy first (much like the steam engine was invented back in the 1720s and perfected in the 1760s by James Watt)? Would they be willing to share or sell it if we had been stingy? Would the western nations be left out of the new revolution in green technology while China or India or both leapfrog ahead of us?

5. What is the moral thing to do in this case? Or, in other words, what is the right thing to do? For the sake of the planet's health, what should be done?

Use at least 3 of these questions to help you answer the "should wealthy nations feel obligated to help out other nations who haven't industrialized yet?" concept.

150 words minimum due Monday, December 7th.

Blog #6 - China and pollution concerns

Pollution is a big problem in China since they now have become the world's manufacturer. It is blamed for raising the birth defect rate 40% just since 2001 (http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/pollution-china-defects-.htm). There was major concern over air pollution and how the athletes would perform under those conditions.

According to China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/24/content_7508856.htm, a government official is quoted as saying:

"'The general situation of environmental pollution does not allow us to be
optimistic,' Zhang told a national meeting on pollution control in Shanghai.
'The fundamental way to overcome this is to continue to press enterprises to
reduce pollution emission through technology and management,' he said."

90% of China's lakes and underground water is polluted, according to the same article.

Because China's pollution affects the world, do you think that China should be pressured to fix its pollution problems? If so, who pressures China to do this? U.S.? U.N.? How should China pay for these fixes? Taxes on manufacturers? Foreign companies pay for it?

Minimum 150 words, due Friday, 2/27.

Link to "China Makes, The World Takes"

All right. Here's the link to the Atlantic Monthly article, "China Takes, The World Takes."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/shenzhen

A slide show of pictures that goes along w/ life in China. http://podcasts.theatlantic.com/2007/06/made-in-china.php

Questions for "China Makes, The World Takes."

Intro pgs. 49-52

1. How has trade with China been beneficial to both China and the West?

2. How is the rise of China today similar to the rise of 19th Century America?

How It Works: The View from the Four Points pgs. 52-65

3. How does Shenzen's growth parallel that of China?

4. What did it mean Shenzen to be a "special economic zone"? How did this status help the city become a huge manufacturing center?

5. What does the term "Mr. China" mean? Why has it been so difficult for someone to keep this title?

6. Describe the life of a typical migrant worker who has left the countryside and moved to the city looking for work.

7. What is the work week like for a typical factory worker? What do these workers do after working in the factory for 2-3 years?

8. Who were the first entrepreneurs that came to Shenzen? Why did they come?

9. What are the two reasons (low-road, high-road) why American buyers keep secrets about their Chinese suppliers?

10. Why are Chinese factories attractive to those companies who have / need a quick turn-around time?

11. How is the Inventec Computer factory like the "Ford Motor Company's old River Rouge plant"?

Good For Us - For Now pgs. 65-72

12. The 11th Five Year plan in China is named "harmonious society" or hexie shehui. What does this 5 year plan attempt to do?

13. How does the Chinese government justify the low wages and terrible treatment of its workers?

14. The smiley curve shows where the Chinese workers come in at the manufacturing section. At both ends of the smile, America is there "where the money is." Why do you think it's important for America to be on both sides?

15. (p. 69) How have the Chinese helped out America's economy?

16. How do China and Japan's economic development differ?

17. What kinds of complications does America have to beware of when dealing with China in the future?

18. How is China trying to move out of the bottom of the smiley curve?

19. Why do you think the author has the opinion that manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced or sent to China will most likely, if never, come back to America? Explain.

Choose 10 total questions - you must do five that are bold and red, and you choose the remaining 5 questions to answer.

Due Thursday, 2/26/09