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
32 comments:
1. Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal? Why or why not? A government should not support a company’s actions even if its actions are illegal. I think this because if an action is illegal then someone or something should not be doing it, therefore, it should not be supported. Another reason a government should not support illegal actions is that if you do something illegal than you go to jail, so the company that does the illegal actions should be thrown in jail.
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. Even though China got Hong Kong back at the end of the “100 year lease” in 1997, the British government should be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago. I think this because the British government was smuggling the opium into China even though the emperor had banned it. Another reason that the British government should be held responsible for their actions is that the Chinese were not interested in the Western goods and told Britain that they didn’t want the opium.
Nicholas Kizy
1st Hour
1. Should a government support a company's actions even if its actions are illegal? Why or why not? A government should not support company’s illegal actions because for one reason, they are illegal! If a government supports illegal things, they will be known for supporting that forever. This will most likely result in a bad image for that government. They will be perceived by other governments poorly. Then, more likely than not, countries and other governments will not want to trade or even be associated with the corrupt government.
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. The British government should not be held responsible for its actions 170 years ago. The past is the past, and there is nothing you can do to change that. The leaders and government have changed since than, so Britain will most likely not take part in those actions again. Also, 170 years is way too long to be held responsible for something. Just because a government made a mistake in the past, doesn’t mean they have to take responsibility for it now, or that they can not be trusted.
------Brett Schwartz------
1st Hour
1. I don’t think a government should support illegal actions from a company because it’s not right, and it makes them look bad. Even if they’re benefited by the company’s actions, other nations probably wouldn’t want to trade with them anymore, which would make them lose more profit than the illegal stuff brings in. They could also lose allies this way, because a government that supports illegal actions is most likely not too loyal, and shouldn’t be trusted.
2. The British Government shouldn’t be held responsible for its actions because all that stuff happened before and you can’t change it. It’s not good to hold grudges. The East India Company was the ones selling and smuggling opium anyway, the government had nothing to do with it. The British government also only went to war because the East India Company complained that the Chinese were burning down the warehouses of opium, but since it was British property, they had no choice except to go to war. Although it was wrong to take Hong Kong away, the Chinese were just trying to keep from being druggies. If the British continued to sell opium to the Chinese today, then they would have to be blamed.
Larry Geist
3rd Hour
1. Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal? Why or why not?
Of course they should not. If the actions are illegal, it was probably made illegal for a reason in the first place. If a government allows a company to do something illegal, the civilians will think its okay for them to do so and they might do it, thinking that its okay for them to do it since other companys are doing it. This may lead to a corrupt government, which would not just be unsafe, but would set a bad example for the people, and it would make the nation look bad to its people, and surrounding nations. So, i say that a government should not support a companys actions if its actions are illegal. If the actions were legal, Id say the government has the right to support its actions, and the other nations will not look at this in a bad way since they are sticking to the laws.
4. Can you think of any examples in recent times when a country has gone to war for economic / business reasons? Explain.
One example is the war in Iraq. Of course there were reasons like the weaponry, But Iraq is Big on Oil and for people to get their hands on its oil means alot. CASHFLOW!!! They could make big profits.and this could be an economic reason to going to war.
-jithmi
1st hour
1) Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal?
I don't think a government should support a company's actions if they are illegal because the support could lead to bigger problems in the future. First of all, illegal actions should not be done in the first place, and therefore don't deserve support of others. Also, by giving support, this could cause the supporting countries to get in trouble because by supporting illegal actions, they are technically a part of these actions. Another result that could occur is that the country doing these illegal actions may use this support as an excuse to continue in taking part in other illegal activities.
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.
I don't think the British government should be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago. To me, I believe that something that occurred 170 years ago with Britain shouldn't be remembered today, especially with different government ways and beliefs. I also think that Britain doesn't want to take part in these illegal actions again and they don't want to be blamed for something that happened in the past under the rule of different people. In order to make sure that this never happens again, the British government has made many changes since the actions that happened 170 years ago.
Emily Honet
1st hour
For my question I decided to do number three. It seems like the Chinese could not stop the British from smuggling the drug was maybe because a lot of people may have been addicted and that was the only thing they would trade for. Like they would only trade tea or something for opium. Maybe some of the Chinese officials in the situation agreed to it while others didn’t and that is why so much opium was getting smuggled in at the time. Maybe the Chinese also needed the opium in their own society for trade as well as the British. If might have been needed just for them to get food on the table or something, its like opium was a currency for some people. They would trade some of their goods only for opium because they might have had an addiction to it. Either way officials at the time were sort of in a limbo at the time deciding of they would let opium in or not. In a way they had no decision or action to take against all of the trading of opium. In a way China was a neutral stand on If they should allow opium or not.
Elliott Wolf
1st hour
Harrison Brode 3rd hour 2/21/10
1) The government should not support a company’s actions even if its actions are illegal because the government wants to make its people happy. Doing illegal stuff is wrong and in some cases can make people happy but the people who do this illegal stuff know that there doing bad things. Also some illegal things can be dangerous and harm people. If the government wants to protect its people then the government needs to stop this illegal activity.
3) If the British East India Company still existed today they should be responsible for there actions because after all the problems they have caused, we should not help them with there problems. Also if they wanted to trade with other countries, they need to do it themselves and be responsible for it. If they could get that far then I think that they will be fine with there problems. If they made problems with my country I would destroy them due to them threatening and smuggling goods out of my country.
For my question i diced to do numbers 1 and 4 for the second question thingys. With should a govt support a companys actions even if hey are illegal i think they should because it is happening right now. we are supporting marjuania corp for the grwth of Marjuania even though people for somthing else instead of the hemp to make lotions and other materials it is happening already.
well im not forsure about the forth question about can you think of any examples in recent tims when a country has gone for war for economic or business reaasons. Israle and pakistans (i think) are going for war because they want land and with the land they can get touristes for eaither country
~Anthony Lossia 3rd hour~
1. Should a government support a company's actions even if its actions are illegal? Why or why not? If a company’s actions are illegal, the government should not support this company. The government should do whatever it takes to keep things legal, not support illegal actions. What the company is doing is illegal, or against the law, so why should it be supported by the very people who made these laws. If other countries found out what the government what supporting, they may view them poorly, and might even want nothing to do with them.
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. The British government should not have to be held responsible for its actions 170 years ago. Nobody can change the past, and anyone that was alive and responsible for what happened is dead, so there isn’t anyone to blame. The current government really didn’t have anything to do with what happened 170 years ago, so why blame them? Anyway, it was the East Indian Company that was actually selling and bringing in the opium.
Austin Lessnau
1st hour
1. A government should not support a company’s actions if it’s actions are illegal. They shouldn’t support the illegal actions because in the constitution, it states that nobody is above the law, including companies. Illegal means that something is not according to or authorized by law (Merrian Webster dictionary.) This says that if it’s not aloud by law then it shouldn’t be done. This will give a bad reputation to the government if they were to support these actions. Other governments will judge them badly and won’t want anything to do with them
2. There is absolutely no reason for the present British government to be held responsible for it’s actions today that took place one hundred seventy years ago. After so many years, new generations have changed and become apart of the British government. Because these new people had completely nothing to do with the decisions of the old government, they should not, for any reason, be accused of what happened so long ago. At the time, the British government felt that the actions that took was the right thing at the time, but now that the government has change in many different ways, they can’t be held responsible.
Nona Campbell
Autumne Parker
2/22/10
1st hour
A government should not support a company’s actions even if its actions are illegal. They should not support it because all in all, it is wrong. Illegal things do nothing but bad for the people and society. Many people will do anything just to earn some money, and even go as far as selling illegal substances or items. Even in desperate measures, illegal actions do not improve anything. The opium war is a perfect example. The British East India Company earned a lot of money and what not, but the Chinese were addicted to the substance. It helps out one situation, but creates another situation in the making.
I do think the British government should be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago because it had a huge impact. However, I don’t think Britain would ever accept responsibility like that because they act like they are above everyone and everything else. They should accept responsibility because they got a whole country hooked on opium just for a simple profit. They snatched Hong Kong away from them and just made their mark in somebody else’s country. Even though they gave Hong Kong back to China in 1997, they should still hold responsibility for their actions.
1. If a company’s actions are illegal, I don’t think a government should support it. If something is illegal, it’s illegal for a reason. I don’t think there is really a way around that. It’s the government’s job to stand behind the laws they make. They should also respect other government’s laws. For example, when the British EIC began smuggling opium into China, the government should not of gone along with it. I think it is unreasonable for the British government to attack China for protecting their people from drugs. I personally think making opium illegal was their choice and the British had no right to attack them for it. It was one thing for the company to try and smuggle it in, but it’s another for the government to be okay with them doing something illegal, and fighting on their side for it. It shows very little respect for the British government to do this. I definitely don’t think a government should ever stand behind a company for doing something illegal.
2. I do not think the British government should be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago. 170 years is a long time, and no one that directly took part in that event is even alive anymore. The current government did not take part in it, so I do not feel that they are responsible for it. I do, however, think that the current government needs to recognize the mistakes made 170 years ago and need to learn from them. They need to realize that what the British EIC did was illegal, and the government should not of supported it. The events of the past government should not be taken out on the current government, but the current government definitely needs to know not to make the same mistakes.
Lizzie Davidson
3rd Hour
Emily A.
1st Period
1. I think that the British government should be held responsible for it’s actions 170 years ago. Just as countries are held accountable for war crimes so should they be accountable for other actions that have a long-term adverse affect on a society or country. Sometimes a country has such a hold on the world politically that no one can stand up to them at the time. England was just like this at the time of the opium wars. I do not think economic retribution is always realistic after such a long period of time, but I also believe that it is the right thing to do if you have, like the British, caused a population something as severe as widespread opium addiction.
4. The United States declared war on Iraq under the reason that Sadam Hussein was a terrorist and a threat to the United States and it’s people. However, some people believe that we also went to war to gain control of the Iraqi oil supply. The United States at the time had a huge dependency on foreign oil with no clear alternate power source. At this time North Korea and Iran really posed a greater threat, but we chose to go after Iraq. So some people believe that our government had two motives for going to war with Iraq, eliminating the threat of biological warfare and securing a supply of oil to the U.S.
1. I think a government should not support a company's actions if they are illegal, no matter what benefit they get out of it. It’s a complete contradiction to what a government stands for. A government represents structure, order, and control. All of these things involve following a law. There shouldn’t be any exceptions to the law, because then people won’t take laws seriously. They’ll end up not taking the government seriously either considering the loop holes there are. It would cause the people to think that they can get away with anything and the government will support it if it has a benefit. There are others way for a government to get around a sticky situation then to make a fool of itself and go against their own laws.
2. I think people would still see the EIC as what it was when it started its corrupt trading, even though it probably wouldn’t be the same. The leaders of the company throughout years would change and morph their thoughts eventually because of society, changing the motive of the company. Even though this could happen, people would realize what the EIC did to the Chinese and think differently about what the company stood for. You can’t shake your reputation just because you’ve changed, it still follows
Maddie Perfitt
1st hour
Andrea Kelly
3rd hour
2.Should the British government be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago? Why or why not? I think the British government should not be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago because things were so much different 170 years ago. They were different people 170 years ago too. Even though it gave Hong Kong back to China at the end of the "100 year lease" in 1997. I think that was more of a stubborn way of looking at a deal. Maybe they could apologize or make more equal treaties but they shouldn't be held completely responsible for it.
3.If the British East India Company still existed today, should it be held responsible for its actions? Why or why not? I think if the British East India company existed today it would have evolved so much it would be alot different and should not be held responsible for its previous actions. Different people would be working in it and be the heads of the company so arrangements could have already been made in apology to China.
Jacob Seid
Questions 1 and 2
1. I think a government should support a company’s actions, even if illegal, in order to protect its people or to achieve a goal which in turn would help the country’s people and its overall well being. I do not think that a government should lean to the illegal company’s side unless they have to. I agree with governments supporting both illegal companies and legal companies depending on what the situation is. I do think that a government should start off on the good side and support and legal company.
2. I do not think the British should still be responsible for what they did, by admitting to it and giving the continue giving things to China for example Hong Kong because it is something they promised. Even though they are responsible for what happened they cannot change the past, which is a problem many face with all kinds of problems. The British did show responsibility in giving back Hong Kong to china after the hundred year lease because an agreement is an agreement and a government and a nation with so much popularity needs to show strong leadership for its nation by being responsible and doing the right thing such as this.
1. Generally a government should not support a company that engages in illegal transactions if the transactions are illegal in that country. For example, the US should not support an American company that engages in illegal activities with another country. However, the lines become blurry when something may be legal in one country but not in another. Also, what happens if the law changes? Do we stop doing business with a long-time partner? One issue that comes to mind recently, was a bank with offices in the US, but a home base in Europe, that was doing business with a Middle Eastern country that the US considers a non-fair trade partner. So really where does it become illegal? And perhaps, the US trade laws may change making business not seem so wrong. Of course any business should do what is right, not just operate to make a profit. The government has a responsibility to make sure that the businesses do what is morally right.
4. Recently, the US has gone to war in Iraq. Certainly part of the reason was to eliminate the previous government. But, part of the reason the US is so interested in Iraq is due to the amount of oil in that part of the world. We want control and access to enough oil for all of our businesses and automobiles. Politically and economically, it has been important to be involved in the Middle East.
Laura S
3rd hour
Karen De la Rosa
3rd hour
1. I think that governments shouldn’t support company’s actions even if their actions are illegal because if they do the government can lose the support from the people or supporters. If the actions are legal and it could help the country then I would agree with the government supporting the companies. When government support companies it can affect the economy, and with one economy falling the rest of the worlds economies fall as well. Like when the US government was supporting Chrysler and all the other companies that were in dept, the economy started to fall, and it affected many places around the world since we all depend on each other.
2. I think that British government should be responsible today for their some of their actions from 170 years ago, because it was part of their history and they should take responsibility for some of the stuff that happen, just like the major damages that they cause another country or place, or if they started something and it affected many people through history and today it’s the reason why some things are the way they are. It shouldn’t take blame or action for everything they did because probably a lot of the stuff is already forgotten or it doesn’t affect anyone or any society today in the present day.
Question 1: No, A government shouldn’t support a company when its actions are illegal because governments are created to help the people and citizens. The government should not be used support one or several special groups only based on their relationships. Companies that work with the government shouldn’t get the better treatment just because they are paying the government. Although there will always be greedy people willing to sell out their government or be persuaded for money.
Question 3: Yes, if the East India Company still existed in the world, they would be responsible for their illegal or legal actions. They would be responsible because people now a day’s weren’t as ignorant as before. The things they did before wouldn’t be approved by modern society because it would be viewed as wrong for taking advantage of countries and people. The East India Company would cease to exist because it would be shut down very quickly by the good-hearted people. There would probably be companies just like East India Company, but worst.
-Eric Chan
1.) A government should NOT support a company's actions if it is illegal. This should always be the case, because if it's illegal,it's OBVIOUSLY illegal for a reason.In this case, the emperor of China banned opium,for he didn't want anyone smoking it (smoking is unhealthy and dangerous). If something is dangerous, it shouldn't be used. It'd obviously be quite dumb for a government to support something that could be dangerous or harmful to the people of a country.
3.)If the British East India Company still existed today, it *should* be held responsible for its actions. Why? Well,in my opinion, anyone smuggling drugs into a country after it has been banned from a country by the country's rule SHOULD be punished for a crime like this. The British EIC had no business doing that in the first place,especially after knowing that what they were smuggling was dangerous.I'm not sure exactly as to what should be done to them (if they still existed today);maybe something like banning opium from it's country,to teach them a lesson about smuggling it into another country.
4.)I'm not sure if this is *exactly* right (for I'm not exactly sure about what the war is about),but I've heard that the war in the middle east was over Oil. The Middle East is a major source of oil,which we all seem to need right now. If the Middle East won't "share" their oil,I can see how there would be War.But like I said,I'm pretty sure that's not what the war is about.But it *could* be...
-Reanna Kathawa,3rd hour*
1. Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal? Why or why not?
- No a government should not support a company's actions if they are illegal, I mean why should they get the privilege of doing illegal things when in your country you are putting people in jail for it. It just is wrong to tell your citizens that they cant do something and then let some major company go right ahead and do it with no problem.
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?
- If the EIC was still in existence today then that I think that ya they should take responsibility for their actions. But since they don’t exist anymore I think that we should just let this one go. Ya it was a terrible thing but it was 170 years ago times were different and if we try to bring it up again it might hurt our relations with the British and just cause more trouble than it's worth now. But if the EIC were still around then the UN could try to cut their trade relations or impose higher tariffs on goods they import and export
-Eli Jensen
1. A government should not support a company’s actions even if its actions are illegal because if something’s illegal then it’s not supposed to be done. So the government shouldn’t support anything that would get anyone else in trouble. Also governments shouldn’t support illegal actions because if anyone does anything illegal the go to jail. So if the government supported illegal actions, then started doing them themselves, they should be thrown in jail.
4. The United States declared war on Iraq because Sadam Hussein was a terrorist threat to the United States and we feel he was also a threat to the people’s lives. Another reason we may have entered the war with Iraq is the amount of oil Iraq has, that would come to a lot of use in everyday life. The United States had a huge dependency on foreign oil without a main source or power source. We chose to declare war on Iraq and not another country with a large amount of oil because the other countries have more power than Iraq, so it’s easier to win the war. So I think there’s two motives to win the war, the oil supply and the terrorist threat on America.
Andrew Samosiuk
2) I don't think the British government should be responsible today for its actions awhile ago UNLESS China still is having problems related to the opium war. I do think it is unfair that Hong Kong was taken from them for 100 years because it could have been a less useful place after the British gave it back. Hong Kong was a major area for China so it would make sense for China to be very mad about this. Now that they have it back however, they should be fine. And if they are not, then the British government should be blamed.
3) If the British East India Company still existed today then it should definitely be held responsible for its actions. They were doing something illegal to someone who was for the most part helping them. Although the Chinese would not buy all of their goods they still traded other things. By going behind their back with the opium they were unfair to a very good ally in the trade market. They should have not crossed the Chinese. In my previous answer I said that the British government could be blamed, but I believe that if the British EIC existed still then it would definitely be blamed on that rather than the government. But of course since the British EIC is under the government's control, the government would have to be punished as well.
Caileigh Papp
WH 3rd period
1. I think that it is wrong to support a company that chooses to act illegally. This makes them seem like they support decisions that they had already decided weren't right. They would hypocrits that don't follow their own set of code and rules. By supporting and or providing money to companys who act illegally, you are only increasing their activity. With this income and greater activity, more illegal acts will come into play. You can't hide the fact that what you are doing is wrong, especially if your the source behind the mess.
4. I think the Iraq war was fought in part of economic business reasons. Our economy relies heavily on oil, which countries like and near Iraq have. If the oil stock drops, everything else drops since most companies ship with cars and use oil in factories to manufacture their goods. So I think the Iraq war is fought for economic reasons so we can get our oil and maintain a stable economy. Since the Iraq war was not going so well, our economy plunged into a recession. If the war starts to get better and we win very soon, probably not, then our economy will probably receive a nice boost. sorry its late, David Bellefleur
Malik Banks
Blog #15
1. No I don’t think the government should a Company’s actions if they are illegal. I feel this way because if the country supports that company with its illegal deeds and someone discovers the country is involved in illegal stuff than the official of that country could get in a lot of trouble for supporting that company. Compared to if you did not support the company the official and the government of that country would not get in trouble and they would be able to stop the company from continuing any illegal actions.
2. No, I don’t think the British government now should be held responsible for the actions of the country 170 years ago. I doubt the country has anything to do with what happened years and years ago. Because they surely don’t have any of the same officials that they had 170 years ago. The British government is not the same as back then.
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?
Diplomacy failed to make changes in trade agreements with china. So Britain started to sell opium to the Chinese to make some changes to help them out. It was just the Chinese Britain was selling the opium to, but it was grown in India. Other nations got opium involved in their trade agreements, but by then a large number of Chinese had got addicted to the opium.
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 government approve of this trade, and by extension approve of addicting thousands of people to opium?
Chinese wanted to stop the awful trade they even made harsh laws to stop the illegal drug trade but the Chinese went too far and destroyed a British ship and that’s what really started a war between British and Chinese. But Chinese really had no chance against Britain with their outdated weapons while British had large ships and cannons.
Kris C.
1.) NO, the government should not support a company's actions because what is illegal is illegal and you shouldn't make something that is illegal and make it o.k. its contridicting yourself.
2.) NO i do not think that the birtish government should be responsiable for actions that happened 170 years ago because things that happened back then, dont have an as great effect on things that are happening now. Most of the people that were part of the government back then are most likely to be dead.
Rachel Shattuck. 3rd hour
1. No, I don’t think a government should support a company’s actions even if its actions are illegal. Things that are illegal usually are trying to protect you, or other people. The government shouldn’t support something that would hurt people.
2. No, I don’t think the British government should be held responsible for its actions today for its actions 170 years ago. It wasn’t really the people today who stole from china, and sold their people drugs, it was their ancestors. The British East India Company isn’t even around today, we shouldn’t hold grudges. I do think, however, Britain messed up China and they should have done something about it back then. But I think it’s too late for them to do anything about it now.
Kelly G.
No. The government should never support an illegal company. One of the reasons why a country has a government is to keep everything in balance. If the people find out the government is not doing the ethically thing to do in the process of helping the country, the people lose faith in the government,and the government loses control over the country and everything will become unbalanced. And also ts the moral thing to do.
And no the British government should not be responsible for something that happened 100s years ago. Unless the British today feel likewhat happened 100 years ago was ok. And yes the 100 year lease was a succes for China but i dont think some one should be judged what somebody they knew did in thier past, I know Britain feels bad about it, but they shouldn't have to pay for it.
Alesha L.
No. The government should never support an illegal company. One of the reasons why a country has a government is to keep everything in balance. If the people find out the government is not doing the ethically thing to do in the process of helping the country, the people lose faith in the government,and the government loses control over the country and everything will become unbalanced. And also ts the moral thing to do.
And no the British government should not be responsible for something that happened 100s years ago. Unless the British today feel likewhat happened 100 years ago was ok. And yes the 100 year lease was a succes for China but i dont think some one should be judged what somebody they knew did in thier past, I know Britain feels bad about it, but they shouldn't have to pay for it.
Alesha L.
I don't think that the government should support in any illegal company because the government is there to keep everything in order and to make sure people are following the law since they are the ones that create the law. So when the people that create the law break the law it could give people the thought thats like "hey if they can break the law, why cant I?"
and the British Government should not be held responsible for the things that they did about 200 years ago because the people that were apart of that government are more than likely dead and the stuff was a long time ago and should have very little affect on what is happening today.
~sierra barnes~
1) I would have to say no, a government should not support a company's actions if they are illegal, why should they get the privilege of doing illegal things when in your country you are putting people in jail for it. It is wrong to tell your citizens that they cant do something and then let any company go right ahead and do it with no problem.
4) I don't think the British government should be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago. I believe that something that occurred 170 years ago involving Britain, shouldn't be remembered today, especially with different ways and beliefs. I also think that Britain doesn't want to take part in these illegal actions again and they don't want to be blamed for something that happened in the. In order to make sure that this never happens again, the British government has made many changes since the actions that happened 170 years ago.
-Kaitlin
Post a Comment