Question: Is it fair to portray China (or the Chinese) as the victim of the international opium trade in the 19th century?
Reviewed sources:
1. Carl A. Trocki, "Drugs, Taxes, and Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia", in Brook, Wakabayashi, Opium Regimes, pp. 79-104
2. Dikoetter-Zhou-Laaman, Narcotic Cultures, "6. War on Drugs: Prohibition and the
Rise of Narcophobia (c. 1880-1940)", pp. 93-117
Source one is using the approach of economic history to study the opium issue in the Southeast Asia. It analyses the fiscal situation of the straits settlements in the 19th century, and trying to argue that their economic foundation was hugely based on the “captive” Chinese coolies of the opium farms, where opium was acted as a crucial “tool” in the process. The author firstly illustrates the lack of tax sources for the colonial governments in the region, and indicates their financial dependence on opium selling as it regularly counted for around 40% to 60% of their local revenue. After that, he introduces the Chinese “piglets”, using factors like the Taiping Rebellion to explain their entry and how opium had seduced them into debt with their opium farmers. Eventually, these “piglets” were destined to work for his whole life in a foreign land while contributing significantly to the founding of capitalism in the Southeast Asia.
For the primary sources, the author uses notes of a Scottish colonial administrator, report of the Royal Commission on Opium (which consists an interview of a Singapore merchant), published works of a Singapore surgeon and an English mining engineer who worked for the Siamese government, etc.
I think the overall argument is convincing. As the territory of the Southeast Asia was colonized and divided by various foreign powers, free trade might be the most possible agreement between those settlements in order to protect the interest of the merchants. Other arguments like the colony had “few permanent inhabitants” and “little agriculture and other products” are also conceivable in any sense. And therefore, the argument of “lacking tax sources” should be reasonable. Besides, the depiction of the Chinese labor flooding into the Southeast Asia is also accorded with different incentives in history. Except the Taiping Rebellion (which is mentioned in the text), the Convention of Peking in 1860 also explicitly stated that “allowing the Chinese workers to go abroad by their will”, which entailed the complete abolition of the sea ban policy that originated from the Ming Dynasty. It also implied that there was an emergence of demand for low-cost labor in foreign places like the Southeast Asia or the San Francisco of North America at the time, otherwise the term would not be requested by the foreign powers. By far, most of the background information that we known undoubtedly favors the author’s stance. His elaboration on how it was the Chinese merchants who dominated the opium farms instead of foreigners, also points indirectly that the coolies were actually enslaved by their fellows, which is also a supplement for many people’s understanding.
Source two is using the approach of political history to study the opium issue in China. It argues that the smoking of opium as a type of narcotic culture was already existed in ancient China even before the 19th century, and it had only become a “scapegoat” in history due to the politics of nationalism in the late Qing, the racial concern of the West towards the “Yellow”, the rise of medical profession, and also the self-image construction of missionaries in the late 19th century of China. To be concise, the author was trying to demonstrate that the opium issue was just a propaganda used by various stakeholders in the late 19th century rather than a cruel fact that truly occurred in China.
In the first half of the article, the author uses a letter from a bishop, a report of a regional health department, and mainly the conclusion of the Royal Opium Commission in 1895 to justify his view. In the second half (started from the nationalism subheading), however, the author failed to provide any significant primary sources that are supportive to his stance. Instead, he uses “counter” primary sources such as a letter of Lin Ze Xu on opium legislation, an article of ShenBao, words of Jiang Jie Shi, etc., to illustrate how history had developed unfavorably in his point of view.
I think this passage is pretty ridiculous in many ways. There are only a few evidences in the text that would back its claim, including a letter of a Sichuan bishop in 1843 and also a report of the Shanghai health department in 1902. None of them had shown very convincing. For the former, it is used to play down the severity of addiction, as opium was not mentioned as a “China’s vice” by this bishop while he was listing out the others in one of his letter. Despite its randomness and bias, it is easy to question that addiction was not consider as a “vice” just because a self-draining act would hardly be seen as “offensive”, no matter for foreigners or for this bishop at the time. The moral standard used by the author is also unstated in the text. For the latter, it is pointless to use foreign drunks in a concession to highlight the insignificance of opium in China, as opium was definitely more prevalent among the Chinese in those common provinces like Guangdong. The only point that I found reasonable is Timothy Richard’s opinion, which is “opium could help the indigestion for someone who could only afford animal food in their daily life”.*
While the argument in the first half of the passage is barely constructed, it is shocking to find that the author does not even bother to use primary sources that are supportive to his stance in the remaining part of his article. Most of the time, it seems he is trying to use his “tone” rather than his points to rebut the counter argument that he had enumerated. There are many bias descriptions and irresponsible statements, such as “the court envoy (Lin Ze Xu) who initiated the first Sino-British War” in page 105, which is obviously purpose in provoking rather than providing a “critical analysis”. In fact, whether the war was sought by the Qing or the British should be clear enough for anyone who had read the Tianjin Treaty, in which the legalization of opium was indicated explicitly as an attached requirement.
13 Oct, 2018
1. Carl A. Trocki, "Drugs, Taxes, and Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia", in Brook, Wakabayashi, Opium Regimes, pp. 79-104
2. Dikoetter-Zhou-Laaman, Narcotic Cultures, "6. War on Drugs: Prohibition and the
Rise of Narcophobia (c. 1880-1940)", pp. 93-117
Source one is using the approach of economic history to study the opium issue in the Southeast Asia. It analyses the fiscal situation of the straits settlements in the 19th century, and trying to argue that their economic foundation was hugely based on the “captive” Chinese coolies of the opium farms, where opium was acted as a crucial “tool” in the process. The author firstly illustrates the lack of tax sources for the colonial governments in the region, and indicates their financial dependence on opium selling as it regularly counted for around 40% to 60% of their local revenue. After that, he introduces the Chinese “piglets”, using factors like the Taiping Rebellion to explain their entry and how opium had seduced them into debt with their opium farmers. Eventually, these “piglets” were destined to work for his whole life in a foreign land while contributing significantly to the founding of capitalism in the Southeast Asia.
For the primary sources, the author uses notes of a Scottish colonial administrator, report of the Royal Commission on Opium (which consists an interview of a Singapore merchant), published works of a Singapore surgeon and an English mining engineer who worked for the Siamese government, etc.
I think the overall argument is convincing. As the territory of the Southeast Asia was colonized and divided by various foreign powers, free trade might be the most possible agreement between those settlements in order to protect the interest of the merchants. Other arguments like the colony had “few permanent inhabitants” and “little agriculture and other products” are also conceivable in any sense. And therefore, the argument of “lacking tax sources” should be reasonable. Besides, the depiction of the Chinese labor flooding into the Southeast Asia is also accorded with different incentives in history. Except the Taiping Rebellion (which is mentioned in the text), the Convention of Peking in 1860 also explicitly stated that “allowing the Chinese workers to go abroad by their will”, which entailed the complete abolition of the sea ban policy that originated from the Ming Dynasty. It also implied that there was an emergence of demand for low-cost labor in foreign places like the Southeast Asia or the San Francisco of North America at the time, otherwise the term would not be requested by the foreign powers. By far, most of the background information that we known undoubtedly favors the author’s stance. His elaboration on how it was the Chinese merchants who dominated the opium farms instead of foreigners, also points indirectly that the coolies were actually enslaved by their fellows, which is also a supplement for many people’s understanding.
Source two is using the approach of political history to study the opium issue in China. It argues that the smoking of opium as a type of narcotic culture was already existed in ancient China even before the 19th century, and it had only become a “scapegoat” in history due to the politics of nationalism in the late Qing, the racial concern of the West towards the “Yellow”, the rise of medical profession, and also the self-image construction of missionaries in the late 19th century of China. To be concise, the author was trying to demonstrate that the opium issue was just a propaganda used by various stakeholders in the late 19th century rather than a cruel fact that truly occurred in China.
In the first half of the article, the author uses a letter from a bishop, a report of a regional health department, and mainly the conclusion of the Royal Opium Commission in 1895 to justify his view. In the second half (started from the nationalism subheading), however, the author failed to provide any significant primary sources that are supportive to his stance. Instead, he uses “counter” primary sources such as a letter of Lin Ze Xu on opium legislation, an article of ShenBao, words of Jiang Jie Shi, etc., to illustrate how history had developed unfavorably in his point of view.
I think this passage is pretty ridiculous in many ways. There are only a few evidences in the text that would back its claim, including a letter of a Sichuan bishop in 1843 and also a report of the Shanghai health department in 1902. None of them had shown very convincing. For the former, it is used to play down the severity of addiction, as opium was not mentioned as a “China’s vice” by this bishop while he was listing out the others in one of his letter. Despite its randomness and bias, it is easy to question that addiction was not consider as a “vice” just because a self-draining act would hardly be seen as “offensive”, no matter for foreigners or for this bishop at the time. The moral standard used by the author is also unstated in the text. For the latter, it is pointless to use foreign drunks in a concession to highlight the insignificance of opium in China, as opium was definitely more prevalent among the Chinese in those common provinces like Guangdong. The only point that I found reasonable is Timothy Richard’s opinion, which is “opium could help the indigestion for someone who could only afford animal food in their daily life”.*
While the argument in the first half of the passage is barely constructed, it is shocking to find that the author does not even bother to use primary sources that are supportive to his stance in the remaining part of his article. Most of the time, it seems he is trying to use his “tone” rather than his points to rebut the counter argument that he had enumerated. There are many bias descriptions and irresponsible statements, such as “the court envoy (Lin Ze Xu) who initiated the first Sino-British War” in page 105, which is obviously purpose in provoking rather than providing a “critical analysis”. In fact, whether the war was sought by the Qing or the British should be clear enough for anyone who had read the Tianjin Treaty, in which the legalization of opium was indicated explicitly as an attached requirement.
13 Oct, 2018
*「民國前在東京所讀外國小說差不多全是英文重譯本，以斯拉夫及巴耳幹各民族為主……這裡邊最不能忘記的是匈加利的小說……我對於匈加利小說有好感……理由之一……是當時我們承認匈加利人是黃種，雖然在照相上看來，裴彖飛（Sándor Petőfi）還有點像，育西加與育珂等人已顯然是亞利安面貌了 。但他們的名字與歐人不同，寫起來都是先姓後名，如英譯稱摩理斯育珂（Mór Jókai），而其自署則必曰育珂摩耳，這一節似乎比印度人還要更是東方的，在三十年前講民族主義的時代怎能不感到興趣，而其影響便多少留遺一點下來……現在想起來這匈加利的黃白問題頗是曖昧，也不值得怎麼注意，不過從前總有過這麼一回事，有如因腹瀉而抽了幾口雅片，腹疾早愈而煙槍也已放下，但記憶上這口煙味也還會少少存留的。」
－周作人《書房一角》，「匈加利小說」
沒有留言:
張貼留言