Talk:Opium Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Why no mention of the devastating consequence of Opium addiction for 100 years in China

As a direct result of Opium Wars, the wide spead of opium addiction in China lasted for one hundred years. How many Chinese people suffered, died and families ravaged by opium addiction? How much the British profitted from 100 years of opium trade? There are so much research in the West on casualties of Communist rule, why not spend a little to see how much devastation opium addiction has costed China?Redcloud822 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Chinese gentleman on the Internet said that in China it was estimated that I think 15 million died as a direct result and more like 100 million as a result of the impact on development, infrastructure, loss of wealth, disease etc. But I am not sure how reliable that source is. I agree that it would be nice to have some estimates in this article. --Timtak 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Opium use in China dates back to at least the Zhou dynasty of pre-Chin-unification. The well known pain killers of the Three-Kingdom time were in fact Opoids. Opium balls were simply the first industrial products that found a ready market in China, besides silver coins (and gold). Is opium use harmful? Perhaps to some individuals. Just like today's war on drugs, the harm of prohibition was just as great in the 19th century. It's factually incorrect that the British banned Opium consumption within its own borders; both opium and coccaine were quite legal in the 19th century. Sherlok Holmes was an "addict." In fact, many progressive thinkers of the late 19th century thought psychodelic drugs were the best thing since sliced bread: a great tool for bringing happiness to the masses. Eventually, the Second Opium War legalized opium trade and production in China. Domestic production in China quickly outstripped imports. China became the leading supplier of opium to the rest of the world, especially the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 April 2007
whoever posted above had no shame whatsoever. i'd like to see the table turned, that Britain be the one that tried to refuse to import Opium and got punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.7.93.138 (talk) 22:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, whoever said the post defending drug peddlers, it's not so much a lack of shame, as it is a lack of respect for China. Or maybe it's just the attitude one can form when your primary education hasn't been telling you every year it was the most wortest horrible evilest act committed by man (that honor goes to the Nazis so we don't have to worry about anything else that happened). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.210.134 (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The lingering problem of the effects of opium addiction in china should be addressed. Who ever cited that Sherlock Holmes was an addict should remember he was a Fictional character, not a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.102.55.11 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the effects of opium on China. I'm inclined to believe that opium was a problem for China the same way heroin is for the United States today, and I'm sans hard evidence, I'm unwilling to accept that opium use was harmful enough to justify a war. Can anybody give me any sources detailing the harm of opium addiction? Thanks GeneralStan (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Sassoon, the key figure in the Opium War, deserves a place in the main article

Who is David Sassoon?

David Sassoon is the source of the problem. If you trace the Opium War back to one person, one origin, one beginning, the result would be David Sassoon. In effect, the British army was serving as David Sassoon's mercenaries in the Opium War. It was the Sassoon family that started and ultimately benefited from the war. The entire Sassoon family's wealth and power were built from its opium monopoly in China. Therefore, you can't really talk about the Opium War without mentioning David Sassoon.

[edit] Europe profited as well from the trade of opium. How did America, at the time, profit from this trade?

Im finding no reason for the 1729 Chinese prohibition of opium. Was the official reason then that given in the 1810 decree? And is there evidence from 1729 of what we might now recognise as a distinction between medical and recreational use? Was there licensing of select professions (eg 'doctors') to supply opium?

Was China the first country to legislate against opium use? Is China the birth place of modern drug control legislation? ---Unsigned, by Laurel Bush

[edit] Regarding the External Link in this article

The external link in this article leads to an essay that is extremely biased, comparing the British to Nazis and so forth. The spirit of the Wiki ethos would seem to militate against such inflammatory language.

Would you mind signing your posts with four tildes? You mean the www.wsu.edu link? It does seem a little extreme but this is in fact a fairly mainstream position among older sorts of scholars. John King Fairbank referred to it as possible the greatest and sustained crime against humanity. So if it is extreme (and I think it is) it is not exactly non-NPOV. Lao Wai 11:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. This post should have a proper signature. Regarding the www.wsu.edu link, its basic argument that the opium trade represented a terrible and criminal enterprise is pretty much acknowledged fact. What struck me as a questionnable value statement was the paragraph attempting to compare this tragedy with the crimes of the Nazis. The language and content is inflammatory, rather than educational or informative. Rather than shedding light on the event in question, it just draws attention to the outrage of the writer. Your reference to Fairbank is a good example of how to raise the subject of the scale of the tragedy, as it quotes a notable scholar in way designed to further the debate. Thanks again...--Tom-Jar 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering how "over two thousand" chests weighing 140 lb each add up

I'm wondering that, too: "British exports of opium to China skyrocketed from an estimated 15 tons in 1730, to 75 tons in 1773, shipped in over two thousand 'chests', each containing 140 pounds (67 kg) of opium." One ton equals either 2,000 lbs or 2,240 lbs (short tons or long tons), so at most 16 chests would be needed to hold one ton, and 75 tons would fit into 1,200 chests.

Tom-jar, not sure what you'd classify the opium wars as, if not a crime against humanity. The whole point of the enterprise was to produce, distribute and profit from opium. The subjugation of an entire race was its point and the Chinese were looked upon, by the British and their friend Sassoon, as subhuman worker ants. Try to imagine the pain of a child addict who, once addicted to cheap heroin, would have to suddenly earn much more money for its fix. Addicts would do almost anything satisfy the craving and, when their short lives came to an end, the British would already have another generation of slaves in the pipes. To those of you looking for "balance" in this article, there is no balance to this story. On one side are many millions of victims and a country that is only now recovering, on the other are some very wealthy people in Britain who even now are living lives of luxury because of the rapacity of their ancestors.

Emotional outbursts concerning the "poor addicted children" have no place in any encyclopedic body of knowledge.
Not to mention that the high price of opium to that supposed "poor child addict" was the result of Qing prohibition. Brits did not put a gun to any Chinese to force the latter to buy the former's opium exclusively. The Chinese could buy opium from Americans, Dutch, Portugese or locally planted domestic production. The Qing prohibition was what made Opium so expensive in China, and consequently so lucrative for the rest of the world to ship opium to China. After the 2nd Opium War, planting and producing opium became legal in China. Guess what? China became one of the world's leading exporters of Opium, especially to California. So was there some kind of nefarious scheme for China to enslave Americans in the late 19th century? The outburst above ranks among the most absurd racist diatribes around. Qing simply did not understand how the market place works . . . none of the prohibitions would work. By the looks of it, some Chinese still don't understand how a free market place works. Marketplace works by the free exchange of goods and information without coercion. The dominant form of exchange existed in the long history of China unfortunately consisted of coercion: transfer of wealth from one group to another on command by the government's edict. Talk about enslavement. The prinvince surrounding the Qing capital Beijing was called Chili, which literally means "direct enslavement." That's how the Chinese order of the world was like, enslavement to the Imperial Court, directly or indirectly. No wonder the Brits had a problem with that, and unlike the numerous Chinese rebels that frequently found their own heads rolling, the Brits had a means to argue their counterpoint forcefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 April 2007
The province surrounding the capitol was called 直隶 (zhili), while the second character, 隶 (li), is part of the Chinese word for slave 奴隶 (nuli), its meaning here is far from enslavement. 直隶, quite literally, means direct subordinate to the capitol (直接隶属于京师). Specifically, the province enjoyed less degree of freedom than other provinces due to its geographic proximity to the central government, however the governor also enjoyed higher rank and closer ties to the central government.
Now onto the legitimacy of the Opium War. You can possibly keep a straight face while telling me that the opium trade was carried out in sincerity despite a explicit ban by the Chinese government. And furthermore, going to war against another nation over destroyed contraband gives the British absolutely no moral high ground in this discussion.

[edit] The cause and effects of silver on Opium War

I found the first paragraph of the Opium War article ended on an unclear or even convoluted note about the cause and effect of silver on the Opium War. The sentences are "Europeans bought porcelain, silk, spices and tea from China, but sold little in return. The drain on China's silver further strained finances already squeezed by European wars."

I understand many Chinese scholars might have participated in this article and might justifiably feel indignant about the British trespassing, and want to emphasis the historical injustice done by the Europeans.

But without denying the guilt of the British parliament for later endorsing the Opium War, we can still encourage a deeper probe into the earlier silver crisis, which will deepen our understanding of the Opium War history.

My understanding is that in the century before the Opium War, the Qing dynasty was corrupted, and good money chased out bad money, and the kingdom had to horde silver. Qing regime exported but refused to import European textile (a sweet and ironic reversal of fortune today).

Use your common sense: why would China want to import European textiles? For one thing, China had silks, cottons, flaxs, bamboo fabrics, even blended fabrics, and all the fine textiles it needed, while Europeans loved to buy the delicate Chinese fabrics. Even at that time, China was exporting textiles (including but not limited to silk) to European. Secondly, Chinese and Europeans had different cultures and customs, used different textiles and fabrics for making clothings. European textile would have been useless to China. Thirdly and most importantly, unlike Europe, China was not a capitalist society at that point in history, so Chinese peasants had no need for mass consumption. While capitalism was transforming European societies and creating demand for mass consumption, the common Chinese citizens knew and wanted nothing from Europe. ktchong
Use some common sense indeed. China imported enormous amount of textile and other manufactured goods shortly after the ports were forced open in 1842. Why? Because imports were less expensive due to more modern manufacturing methods. Capitalistic market economy started to emerge in China as early as the Southern Song Dynasty. What prevented the Chinese consumers from buying imported goods were trade restrictions enforced by the governments of Ming and Qing. Ming forbade all maritime traffic by Chinese, and Qing only allowed licensed monopolies to trade through the port of Canton while closing all other ports to trade. High price after tax/tariff and trade restrictions were the reason why the ordinary Chinese serfs (not citizens as the government had the authority to lop off the head of whoever it chose, the concept of "citizen" died before the Chin unification 2000 years before and was not reintroduced to China until the colonial era). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007
The British merchantman purposedly set the price under their true value, in order to destroy the natural economic system of China. You can find a similar situation in the tea trade between China and Britain. As Britain acturally controlled the sea route and thus information, they deliberately dumped into China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.229.190 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the ability to regain silver coins from China (by selling into China), Britain faced a silver shortage by 1800. See Crisis of Silver Currency. This precipitated the Opium Wars in the next century, and may even have contributed to the American civil war.

You know, Britain's economic mishap and silver shortage (i.e., mostly caused by its long years of endless expansionist wars and wars-of-turf-and-succession against other European nations) was really Britain's own problem. It's not and shouldn't have been China's. Yet Britain decided to solve its economic crisis by exporting wars and stealing and robbing China of its treasury. Europeans had a habit of turning its money and economic problems into wars, destructions, and sufferings for other people. That's very typical of the British people (or just white people in general,) even to these days, (and Americans have inherited that aggressive, selfish trait.) ktchong
Britain was doing very well economicly in the 1830's. That's why a couple ships built in India could defeat the entire Chinese navy. As for destruction, looting and use of violence, isn't that the basis of government control as opposed to free trade? The critical reason for Qing to sue peace in the First Opium War was the cut off of revenue barges coming from Yantzi Delta to Beijing. Do you honestly believe that oridinary Chinese people living in the Yantzi Delta were willingly surrendering their own fruits of labor to the Emperor and his madarines elite without a long and consistent history of indimidation, violence and mass murder? How exactly did the Chinese establishment enserf such a huge population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007

So that sentence "The drain on China's silver further strained finances already squeezed by European wars" seems to have put the historical cause and effect on its head. Of course, during and after the war, Chinese silver must have been eventually drained.

But the century before 1800, China seemed to be draining the world's silver, which was probably the more relevant cause, because that holds trememdous historical lessons for students of economics, politics, monetary policy, trade, and war today.

I'm no historian, so I put up this notes for you to discuss and make any amendments.

ktchong that last statment was racist; as well i strongly disagree with you.

Something is wrong about the above argument "why would China want to import European textiles? For one thing, China had silks, cottons, flaxs, bamboo fabrics, even blended fabrics, and all the fine textiles it needed, ..."

Did China have all the cost advantages in all the fabrics, machine tools, coal extraction techniques, steam engine and parts, navigational equipments, and other food products from the New World at that time? If so, why would it need to take the Qing regime to "officially" state "that China had no use for European manufactured products"?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty#Rebellion.2C_unrest_and_external_pressure) (18:39, 19 March 2006 61.6.54.241)

Well yes it looks like China had all the cost advantages in textiles at least. The Qing Emperor stated that because it was, arguably, true. Lao Wai 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
China had cost advantage in luxury textiles such as silk, but not in ordinary cotton cloth or wool. That's why after the ports were thrown open, China imported enormous amount of ordinary cotton and wool products. The indigo blue cloth that is so common in the latter Mao era was very much of import origin. The trade imbalance in the late 18th century was caused by trade restrictions and trade barriers thrown up by the Qing authority. Qing only allowed trade through government licensed monopolies and only through the port of Canton. That's why some of the Chinese merchants were the richest men in the world at the time, far wealthier than their European counterparts who had to compete against each other. Of course, their wealth came at the expense of ordinary Chinese who otherwise would have been able to buy import goods at lower price. Price is ultimately what decides the market demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 April 2007

Why not let the peasants decide for themselves they don't need foreign equipments, knives, glass, even things that were already available in China but at lower prices, as well as exotics (perhaps wheat, cotton, peanut)? (18:39, 19 March 2006 61.6.54.241)

The Qing government did not stop anyone from buying any of that. The problem was the British did not build it cheap enough to complete with China. Remember 1839 is very early in the Industrial Revolution. This is why the British turned to opium, it was all they could sell. Lao Wai 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Qing government certainly did restricted people from buying goods from abroad. Anyone moving goods ashore at any port other than Canton was punishable by death. Anyone who traded with foreign devils without a government licensed monopoly was punishable by death.

Apart from the peasants, what internal corruption and xenophobia might have blinded the "regime" from the common sense of buying the European guns and gunships to defend herself, and use them in the Qing regime's western expansion and quelling of revolts in Mongolia, Xinjiang, Sichuan by late 18th century? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty#The_Yongzheng_and_Qianlong_emperors). ( 18:39, 19 March 2006 61.6.54.241)

What about it? And what xenophobia? The Qing did buy such weapons although of course the Chinese traditional response has been to use trade embargoes not weapons. What makes you think that the Qing could have bought weapons anyway? Look at the Lay-Osborn floatila. Lao Wai 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Qing bought substantial amount of weapons from Portuguese and Spanish merchants. They were just of inferior make compared to what were coming out of British foundaries at the time. But, to a mandarin like Lin, a gun is a gun, never mind the muzzle velocity or penentrative power.
"England had little to trade back to China in exchange other than silver. I should point out that the British did have military technology, modern rifles, ships, and artillery they might have traded, but did not offer it. Instead, Britain exported opium" (http://chancelucky.blogspot.com/2006/07/opium-wars-by-travis-hanes-and-frank.html). Why in the world would England give advanced weapons to others, who might very well use those advanced weapons to attack the English?

Haven't these 18th century wars that the Qing dynasty conducted negatively impacted China's economy and silver demand, which many China-centric scholars have blamed on the foreigners and the Opium Wars that came later? The historical context of Qing dynasty's own imperial wars means there is not much difference between the Chinese and the Europeans who "had a habit of turning its money and economic problems into wars, destructions, and sufferings for other people ..." as you argued above. (18:39, 19 March 2006 61.6.54.241)

There is a world of difference. For a start the Qing were not into Imperial expansion and were not pushing opium on anyone. The Qing's wars may have had an impact on the economy, but the Qing government budget was small compared to the economy as a whole. It is unlikely to have done as much damage as the Opium trade. Lao Wai 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Government budget were small compared to economies in any country at that time. Qing's foreign policy was very expansionist. Otherwise, it would not have expanded beyond its southern Manchuria homeland to an extent that was much larger than the preceding Ming Dynasty. The Opium policy of Qing was an abject failure. When the 2nd Opium War made opium growth and production legal in China, China became a major producer and exporter of Opium. That was a major source of funding for early Chinese modernization.

Understanding the Qing dynasty's pre-Opium-Wars failures is extremely important in understanding China's history and future. Blaming it all on the foreigners will only close up the minds of the students of China's history. (18:39, 19 March 2006 61.6.54.241) J Xie Mar 20, 2006

Perhaps but credit is needed where credit is due. And ignoring the foreigners and what they did will only cause the Chinese to foolishly trust the West once more. The Chinese need to cut their own path and that requires a full and proper understanding of history. Neither foolishly anti-Western nor naively pro-Western. But accurate. Lao Wai 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any numbers on trade between China and Britain in 1830's? The article mentions 1400 tons of opium per year in 1838, but it's only one side of the equation. What was the price of one ton of opium? How much tea, textiles etc. did Britain buy in China annually, and how much did it cost? --Itinerant1 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The hoarding of silver is not an excuse to make extra monet by the intentional selling of a product that harms its users the british got more money than they paid the chinese before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.179 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be honest

I have never see a war so anti-humain like Opium Wars.

A boastful “the most advanced” civilization dared to sell drugs to other countries for the sake of British Interests？

So I found that the columbia gangs can justify their transactions easily. Even they ask the columbian army to wage a war againt Great Britain for their sake.160.228.152.6 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's get some context here. Opium was considered a more benign stress/pain reliever than alcohol back in the 19th century. A lot of things people enjoy are potentially bad when over-used. That include the caffeine richly contained in the tea that was sold from China to Britain, as well as substance as common place as sugar. Ironicly, tea was imported to Britain to help sell sugar from the Caribbean. Of course, the massive over-use of sugar drasticly reduced the nutritional value of the caloric intake the British population had, leading to massive malnourishment in the 18th century. Would the anti free traders feel better if Britain had waged war on China to stop the tea trade?
Yes lets get some context. Obviously the goverment in China did not think Opium so harmless. They banned it remember? And no, I would not feel better if Britain had waged any other war either. Especially not under the premise to stop the tea trade. The correct action, if they wanted to stop the trade, would have been to ban Tea (or whatever other commodity) and then enforce that ban - not go invading countries. Obviously, invading "uncivilized" countries was the norm at the time, you just still needed a casus belli to justify it. Like an insult or refusal to comply with a "great" powers demands.

Obviously bans work sorta bad against human desire, but that is neither here or there, in this context. China took a stand against opium. Banned it. Was invaded for it. Britain did not ban tea and would hardly have been invaded if they had.

213.141.89.53 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Last night I had discussion with some Afghan moslims whom also meantioned PRITISH OPIUM WAR against china. they meant British also used drungs against Afghanistan and tried to justify the Afghan heroin trafic to europe ! I beleive when Savagery of history makes people angry and makes them think to revange it is not usefull to keep the record? perhaps we should just forget what Brits had done in China ? it is cruel and inhumane but has nothing to do with now-days-generation in Britain ! also many other countries have similar records ,,,,, barbarism is the dark side of our past , who would be certain his or her grand grand grand grand or some grand ancestor did not commited MURDERING ? So I may seem naive and Christian, we should forgive eachother ! I was moved by reading how terrifying human being can be! PEACE and PROSPERITY for the EARTH and every humans equal !

But the British had taken so much wealth from China by selling and drugging Chinese people for more than 100 years. Such practice made Briton very wealthy and China very poor (of cause there are other complicated reasons in the wealth gap of China and Briton, but Opium trade is important aspect of it) As a result, a British child born today has more privileges than a Chinese child. A Chinese child can not even see some of the most beautiful Chinese artifacts in China, because they were looted and taken to the British Musum in London. It's easy for the British to say let's forget the unpleasant past, and forget each other. What should China forgive, for resist British invasion? It is the current Chinese generation who still suffer for the negative effects of Opium War, and it is the current British continue enjoy the looted Chinese wealth and cultural artifacts. Do you believe justice is served here? Redcloud822 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Uh... how does relate to the article?

Not to mention the absurdity of the rhetoric presented by RedCloud. The wealthiest man in the world on the eve of the Opium War was not a Brit, but a Chinese merchant, who held the monopoly of trade on the Chinese side. The man was beheaded by the Qing government on charges of corruption and smuggling, and his British colleagues were the ones mourned his death and lowed half flag. Trade monopoly and high taxes were the real reason why very little of anything else (besides bullion coin) were imported into China. Qing government only allowed trade through the port of Canton, where they set up myriads of bureacrats and licensed monopolies to constrict trade flow. The purpose of that exercise? Maintaining the huge wealth gap between the elite and the masses of Chinese who were living in abject poverty. When the doors of China were opened up after the two Opium Wars, Chinese consumer demand proved to be remarkably robust, quite contrary to earlier claims that Chinese had everything they wanted domesticly. The social elite in China simply did not want the average Chinese to live a good life; they wanted to control the latter. That's the root cause of Chinese poverty during Qing Dynasty as well as during Mao's years. It's a pity that the message that there's something better out there than monopolistic economic and political power by the corrupt emperor (remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely) had to to be conveyed to the Chinese by modern firearms. But then again, that's how it usually happens in the real world. Japan just got the memo quicker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 April 2007

Men tended to whitewash their sins by blaming the inferiorities of the victims,If China allowed the drug trade and don't even to stop it,it was China's fault，but when things changed,and China realized opiums were not anymore a recreational commodity but a real poison,The Great Britain forced then China to buy drugs.Ladies and Gentlemen,IMHO,It was real Crime.No matter how many excuses you tried to find,it was Crime.The only victims are chinese,they had to pay huge amount of money to drugs while the drug dealers counted money.Furthermore,at that time Chinese were surely not the wealthiest,of course were the Britain who had undergo the industrial revolution.Keep making excuse,the more you tried to find,the more disgusting I found the british.--Ksyrie 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I love the poster 2 posts up. Yes, Britain was trading opium to China because they wanted democracy! to flourish in China right? ;P Dont make us laugh... Please... Nice way to justify bullying anyone who disagrees, for whatever shitty reason (yes china was autocratic).
Was Britain democratic during the Opium War?? Can you tell me at what time univeral suffrage prevailed in Britain?? Was india democratic under Britain?? Please, don't let shit out of your mouth.
Dont bring up wars you obviusly have little understanding of either. Like WW2 pacific. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria/Korea/China was hardly little diffrent from the US manifest destiny, in practice. Except for maybe that Japan had everything to loose with a weak resource base. Also the Japanese might have been a little bit crueler to the Chinese than the US was to the Indians. Maybe...

213.141.89.53 11:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)



What the fuck does this have to do with democracy and why are u guys bringing up irrelevant topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.179 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The article tends to slightly lean towards the Chinese POV.

Tell me, what other viable POV is there? Lao Wai 12:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing POV, British Empire was the most invader in the World!
It would be better to need some prove, I mean after all they import morphine.--MeowKun | Talk 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that the article presents a pro-Chinese POV: I agree with the foregoing comment. What other reasonable, moral point of view could there be? It is generally recognized today that opium has very little legitimate medicinal value, and that if it does, the risks of addicition and other adverse consequences usually outweigh any benefit. Yet, the British, motivated solely by profit, fought two wars to be able to import opium into a foreign country, a practice which had devastating effects on the population. Not only that, but it harmed the reputation of the West and encouraged, either directly or indirectly, the growth of Communism in China, with all of the attendants evils and suffering tha system has brought to China and to the world.

130.13.4.81 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.81 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, if any Brit ever felt ashamed of their opium trade. I will continue to abuse them, no matter which generation of people I'm addressing - till they as a nation appologise to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.210.238 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a logical thing to do. Good luck with that. 129.97.83.252 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

124.121.210.238, I can only assume you are an utter fool. There is no kind way of putting it. I was, to be honest, a little astonished by this article. I mean, I knew the Empire hadn't been an especially nice undertaking, but going to war for such a minor reason is astonishing! But why doesn't it matter which generation? How on earth can you justify blaming someone for something done well over a century before they were born? And this business of nations apologising seems like an utter waste of time. Who does it help? Nobody at all. I'm guessing that you are suitably appalled by all injustices currently happening in the world today, which strike me as a darn sight more important than injustices a hundred years ago. As such, I imagine you are disgusted by the current dictatorship in China, as much as I am disgusted by the opium wars. 86.137.148.73 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

CHINESE INVASION OF TIBET IS THE MOST EVIL INVASION IN HISTORY. WORSE THAN THE NAZIS. CHINA GET OUT OF TIBET!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.13.252 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV 2

Things to remember: the use of opium within China beforehand (and how willing the Chinese were to use it), the fact that the Chinese government was Manchurian – not Chinese, the active participation of the Chinese in the trade, and, most importantly, the fact that opium was a globally widespread drug that was considered safe and socially acceptable/tolerable to use (far more so than, say, alcohol). Oh, and by the way, the English themselves were particularly heavy users of the drug, and it went largely unregulated (at all) for decades after the Opium Wars, so accusing them of being knowledgeable, malicious devils is rather baseless.

"A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous traffic." William Ewart Gladstone (later Prime Minister) in the House of Commons, in 1839 or 1840, according to Rodzinski, Witold: A History of China. Volume I. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979. p.254. (What are your sources btw?)--78.48.67.129 10:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the article again. You state as 'fact that opium was a globally widespread drug that was considered safe and socially acceptable/tolerable to use', yet the article states "Faced with the health and social problems associated with opium use, the Chinese imperial government prohibited the smoking and trading of opium in 1729.', a direct contradiction of your claims of both the safety and worldwide use of the drug.
This date of 1729 for the ban of was over a century before the Opium war - which is roughly the time gap between now and when opiates were legal in England. Is the fact that opium use was once legal in the UK regarded as a excuse for present day drug smugglers?
It was a shameful war, and the British had as much right to force opium on China as the present day international drug cartels have to invade England and to shoot anyone who stops them selling heroin on the streets.
How do you regard the forced import of harmful drugs designed to weaken resistance against colonialism and make a profit in a neutral way? Not by stating "trade which was perceived from two different cultural and economic vantage points — as with any and all global economic conflicts between two parties." That is like describing a mugging of an old lady and taking her purse as "an encounter perceived from two different cultural and economic vantage points - — as with any and all economic conflicts between two parties". The two parties were not equal in their aggressive capabilities - Britain used military force to impose trade which was damaging to China and beneficial to itself and this should be acknowledged.


Herne nz 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Manchurian and Tibetan are Chinese, like Welsh and Scottish are Englishmen (United Kingdom citizen).
Welsh people and Scottish people are not English people, all three are British people. Tozznok 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese people here means "中华民族", the whole Chinese culture area, but not "汉族", the majority of the Chinese people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.229.190 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time opium was not considered to be a source of great evil and was ranked along side alcohol in terms of a social problem, although laws existed in British territories banning its use they were not enforced, as a result many of the upperclass/wealthy in Brittish society were users.....including Queen Victoria herself.

Britain used mlitary force to protect its merchants. Royal Navy did not exact hold a gun to every Chinese and force him/her to eat opium balls. Chinese officials were the ones who believed they owned the entire Chinese population and controlled what the latter could do. Chinese officials were the ones first used military force to enforce an arbitrary trade restriction. Commissioner Lin litterally held an entire civilian population hostage. It just so happened that, Commissioner Lin was not competent at assessing military capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.13 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 April 2007

Correction, smugglers, not merchants.

Please supply a citation to authority indicating that Queen Victoria used opium. I know that many upperclass British people (e.g. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) used cocaine, but that is not the same thing as opium.

130.13.4.81 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.81 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV and Readability

Scholars rightfully indignant at the treatment of Chinese sovereignty at the hands of the British should remember to keep the article calm, neutral, and active. Scholars that have learned English as a second language are well served in remembering that that article should also be free of grammatical errors. If your English is not easily read, please take extreme care in the editing of the en.wikipedia.org site.

147.9.166.200 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Dave

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

A fine start, but lacking in analysis of the significance and effects. Also, I'm afraid I must say that it is in fact too biased. I have zero desire to get involved in any kind of debate over which country was "right" or "wrong" or anything like that. But the article needs to be more neutral - both sides had reasons to do what they did, and we need to take a professional, scholarly attitude towards the whole event, analysing causes and effects and reasonings on both sides. There is no more reason to get nationalistic or upset over this than over any number of other things. Consider this - the British attacked the Qing, but the Qing (Manchus) attacked the Ming (Han). If you insist on choosing sides, and labeling one side the invader or the imperialist, then who are you going to root for? The Roman Bretons against the Anglo-Saxons? The Anglo-Saxons against the Normans? It's history. LordAmeth 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In your logic,the WWII when the Germans attacked the Britain,you felt it was right or wrong？--Ksyrie 03:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course it was wrong - but that's precisely my point. Just as the British have been invaders, imperialists and oppressors at some points in history, so too have they been victims. The Chinese as well, though they were victims in the Opium War, have also been invaders, imperialists, and oppressors at other points in history. It's not fair nor appropriate to paint with a broad brush and label peoples as a whole, throughout history, as either good or bad, oppressor or victim - every people, every country plays both roles at different points. Taking 20th-21st century conflicts aside, I would venture to say that the vast majority of events, conflicts, prior should not be taken as clear cut "good" and "evil". We need to act professional and scholarly about this, step back and look at events with an objective, neutral attitude. Why did Britain do what it did? How did it benefit, and how was it harmed? Why did China do what it did? How did China benefit, and how was it harmed? Britain may be the evil imperialist invader in the Chinese view, but how is/was China represented in the British view? Wikipedia is not a forum for regurgitation of what was learned in nationalistic revisionist Chinese schools, nor a place for expressing how good and right one side is, how evil and wrong the other side is. Rather it is a place for objective, neutral, representations of the historical narrative. LordAmeth (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Germany never attacked Britain. Let just give you the layout. After Sudetenland was annexed, Checz split in half and Tito had been installed, Germany made claims to parts of Poland. The British, finally waking up and smelling the... Tea? :P, realized Hitler would not stop and Poland would be next. Hitler makes a deal with the Soviets to split Poland and to erect a non-aggression pact between the to politically opposite countries.
Britain made a garantee to the Polish. Germany invaded Poland, Danzig and Memel (former Prussian or Teutonic or something territories) being chief claims I think along with some faked incident, to give Hitler some sort of casus belli. Britain and it's allies declares war on Germany.
Also, I should add, the US did NOT declare war on Germany. It was the other way around there too.
Hope I didnt get the timeline completely botched up :)
213.141.89.53 11:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

bretons don't live in britian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.179 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I gather you're referring to the modern inhabitants of the French region of Brittany. Where do you think the name came from? In the appropriate historical context, "Bretons" refers to the Roman/Celtic people who lived in Britain prior to and during the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Some fled to France, bringing with them their culture and language and thus establishing the region of Brittany. The rest, along with the Anglo-Saxons, melded into a society, a people, which could be called "the English", which was to later succumb to the Norman invasions. LordAmeth (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese Empire 1810's decree

Fourth paragraph of The East India Company (1773–1833) heading, you'll notice the sentence began with "'Opium has a him'". A him?? Is this a typo or vandalism? Or there is actually a meaning to this word in this sentence, which is to be followed by descriptions of poisonous and noxiousness. Dat789 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While fully detailing the moral corruption and imperialism of foreign powers in China, the article severly lacks a balance perspetive that criticises the ignorant, racist and supremist attitude of the Chinese officials at that time. Of particular concern would be lin zexu. He actually reported to the Chinese Emperor that he won a few skirmishes against the British when reality was has entire fleet was obliterated while doing negligble damage to the British warships. While Lin was a able admiinstrator within China he obviously displayed gross incompetence against foreign powers. Perhpas his self-righteouness and insufferable pride led to his eventual demise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.247 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 May 2007

Funny how you mention self-righteouness and insufferable pride in the same text as "British", now thats irony. Maybe you should study the concept of "uncivilized" nations abit and it's relation to the British empire.
213.141.89.53 11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Lin zexu failed against the british because he didn't have the full support of the central govt.

[edit] Disgusting and overtly racist

In supporting a more 'neutral' pount of view, I've read one poster try to equate britain's opium trading with the chinese exports of tea and sugar. I've read someone else portray the unequal treaties as an attempt to democratize China, ie, the "free trade" perspective. Then there's someone else trying to normalize the opium war: "the British attacked the Qing, but the Qing attached the Han". Wow. Nice try to equate across hundreds of years of history two completely different conflicts. Using this logic, there's no reason to label the Nazis as invaders when they attacked Poland, because over the hundred years of its history Poland fought other countries. I still can't believe you got away with this statement. Today the British and practically any educated person, anywhere, is ashamed of Britains colonial history in China. This is not controversial or POV at all. It is fact. Quite frankly your opinions, and more specifically the motivations behind them disgust me. For example, here are some real gems from the above discussions:

It's a pity that the message that there's something better out there than monopolistic economic and political power by the corrupt emperor (remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely) had to to be conveyed to the Chinese by modern firearms. But then again, that's how it usually happens in the real world. Japan just got the memo quicker.

Would the anti free traders feel better if Britain had waged war on China to stop the tea trade?

By the looks of it, some Chinese still don't understand how a free market place works.

You are lucky you haven't had to speak to any native speakers of english who will trivially brush aside your nakedly racist views. This article will be cleaned up to truly reflect the nature of the relationships between the countries in this time period. 24.86.255.23 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

the above post has my full support and agreement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillmaster001 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically (I think) that you can either be supportive, neutral or directly against. Even this discussion shows people's views very clearly. Particularly, you can't actually judge people by what 'others' have done so people PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENSIVE. It's not right. An encyclopedia should be entirely neutral, and show the views of both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.115.105 (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Perspective

I seem to recall once discussing this topic with a woman of Chinese birth, though she had almost no accent having come to the US early enough to learn English as a solid second language. My understanding of the events of this war were, at the time, about on par with what was mentioned by this article, that being what I was taught in high school history class. When I mentioned this she became VERY angry and lashed out verbally at me for not knowing what I was talking about and getting all my facts wrong, though she didn't deign to tell me what the 'truth' of the issue was. I, being young and at work with her at the time, simply apologized and let it drop, however I've always wondered what exactly was wrong with my facts. It seems to me that China's government, being the pro-censorship monster that it is, has taken it upon its self to edit its students' history text books to cast themselves in a less humiliating light. I'd really like to know if anyone is aware of if this is actually the case, or if there's another reason for such an outburst from someone who's been subjected to the Chinese brainwashing educational system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.46.252 (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • But the problem is many British people think that Opium Wars were not exist. They think that it is a fault of Chinese(not to create opportunity to have a trade with British). Just like Japanese did something in WWII.Zeuscho (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Highly doubtful that "many" British people don't think the Opium Wars happened. 129.97.83.252 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that this may be true. Not quite with the meaning that the wording used had though. I suspect that a vast number of people in this country have never heard of the opium wars. Not denying they happened, just not knowing at all. 86.137.148.73 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I can't believe no one has tagged this article for NPOV; it is easily the most biased and unbalanced article I have come across on Wikipedia. I will elaborate further, but here are a few reasons. The historical background needs to start further back, to the time of Lord Macartney's embassy to China and his treatment in China. (Namely, how the Qing treated him like any other barbarian tributary and expected him to kowtow to emperor. In other words, how completely out of touch the Qing were with the rest of the world and the most rudimentary diplomatic etiquette.) Then, some more history of the trade disputes between England and China (because these wars were essentially fought over trade). Some other facts: opium was not illegal in England at the time; when the opium trade was banned, British ships would wait offshore, and it was Chinese merchants who smuggled the opium back into China; domestic production of opium in China eventually completely undercut British exports (one of the main reasons for the breakup of the British East India Company's monopoly). I am not saying that some of the pro-Chinese points are unjustified, but this article is hardly balanced. It is based on rather outdated historiography; this is why the term Anglo-Chinese War is being used more often. Historians are realizing that opium was a pretext for, not a cause of the war. The title of this article should be changed to reflect this. Lastly, the external link should be removed immediately, as it is inflammatory, historical inaccurate, and completely inappropriate. (The author cannot even spell; how can we expect him to conduct and present an unbiased viewpoint?) In fact, I am removing it right now. Timocrates (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is biased (BTW for you heated guys with heavy nationalism, I'm Chinese). The wording is fine. However the facts presented are overly one-sided. Like Timocrates stated above, Opium is most likely just the tip of the iceburg. A very large and brightly coloured tip that attracts a lot of attention sure, but the tip nonetheless. Besides the pretext to the war (what happened before) and the Opium law not being strictly reinforced in Britain, how the British government responded to the situation should also be presented, not just a "they took our opium, let's go to war."ParallelPain (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The view from Lord Macartney is just one of many explanations. The other half of the story involves 林維喜案, the Lin Wei-hi homicide case, which is hardly ever mentioned in English texts. Supposedly there were British disturbances involving the burning down of a small village. A local named Lin Wei-hi was murdered by a foreign British sailor. Someone from the British side (Elliot?) was supposed to turn in the killer to the imperial court, but I don't think anyone was ever turned in. So local skirmishes have been going on for sometime. This article seem to focus on the trade-imbalance, which is like the sum of all bottled-up smaller events. Benjwong (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some explains that British demanded extra-territorial right because of that incident. — HenryLi (Talk) 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

in response to timocrates, opium was the main cause of the war and the name 'Anglo-Chinese War' is just an attempt by the West/imperial apologists to whitewash the wrongdoings of the British imperialists. Britain imports opium into China, Britain makes profits, China attempts to ban opium because of its devastating social consequences and adverse health effects (of which the British know full well), Britain wants to keep profits coming in and so launches war against China, Britain defeats China in War, Britain forces China to sign Unequal Treaties, Britain gets 5 new ports opened up for more trade and more profits, China is forced to pay a ridiculous sum of money to the British... Its all black and white, really! Skillmaster (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the cynic in me thinks that this probably isn't quite so black and white. I imagine it would more likely be the 'massive profits' bit that lead to opium being banned, rather than the health effects. Generally the people in a position to make such decisions (anywhere in the world) have cared very little about health effects, and more about money. Of course, opium addicted workers aren't good for your business. Probably a mixture of both then. But attempting to portray the chinese side of things as purely about public health seems a little biased. I'm not saying the opium wars were justified, just that the reason for banning opium was likely far from straightforward. I have no knowledge, other than that things are rarely 'black and white', and that people everywhere are pretty much the same - greedy, powerhungry bastards. In that respect the Chinese were no different from the British.86.137.148.73 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the subject of the article. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD PROVIDE BOTH VIEWS AND NOT BE BIASED. It is hardly fair, to both sides (especially) and SEVERAL comments here are rather a little too OUTSPOKEN. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.115.105 (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)