Jump to content

Talk:Opium Wars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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
Do you have any statistics on the Chinese export of opium to the U.S.? Historian932 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Totally concur with your sentiment. I'm afraid to continue reading through the comments if there are going to be more like that poster. It's sad how people rationalize their bias, and bigotry. Agsftw (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2010 (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)

Anywa it's not the point. It was about China's right to enforce its own laws. Historian932 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Why no mention of the devastating consequence of Opium addiction for 100 years in China" -- What a leading question. The topic in general is a very good one however the question is trying to draw a parallel between opium use in China and 100 years of shame/insignificance felt by the few chinese elite. I would love to hear from a historian. Logicologist (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

If this this true and there are book published sources on this, then by all means add it to the main article. Angry bee (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

American Traders profited from the opium wars because they held the monoply for the trade of Turkish opium. However, their trade was not ad profitable as the British. After the Americans saw that Indian opium made more money, the Americans also dealt with that type of opium, too. Between 1800 and 1830, approx.10,000 chests of opium were imprted by the Americans.~Learnguy~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnguy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

According to something that i have just read ('Victoria's Wars' by Saul David) the opium trade to China was monopolised by the Honourable East India Company until 1833 when the British government ended it. This led to a massive increase in the amount of opium entering China as many American and other European nations traders joined in. However the Honourable East India Company still made huge amounts of money from the customs revenue that they charged and opium still made up 40% of the value of all Indian exports. Not only that but the company owed huge amounts of money to the British government and for the company to remain solvent it had no choice but to fight the Chinese government (alas morality is not important in business). The opium trade had been banned in China for a while before the war began, it was only when the Chinese government actually tried to enforce the ban that war was declared. The opening of the ports to British trade at the end of the war also benefited other foreign nations as they only needed to threaten to declare war on China to get the same results. I also know that in 1603 the Japanese Shogun banned tobacco (and at roughly the same time James I put severe restrictions on the growing and the selling of tobacco. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

This war was based on a very inhumane standing from the point of view of the British but in context it was a very small war looking from the big picture (lets be clear i'm not saying it didnt have big consequences as it quite clearly did have a long lasting impact). Another key reason that the Chinese people are still so poor is because of the fact that until 20 years ago the Chinese government hated all foreigners and so could not reap the benefits of international trade. Also the average chinese peasant before the opium trade was hardly in a position of great happiness and wealth. They were taxed heavily by the Chinese government and were forbidden from doing many things (not just taking opium). Lets remember that the British and other foreign traders (of which there were many) were confined solely to those areas of a few cities on the coast that the Chinese government allowed them to be on. Many Chinese traders and corrupt government officials made huge amounts of money from the opium trade, of course it wasnt moral but unfortunately morality wasnt the main thing that was going through the money makers heads. (In many cases that hasnt changed to this day). ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Would you also like the Mongols and the Japanese to apologise as they killed far more people in China than Britain did. For my part i will not forgive the Danes and the Norwegians until they all apologise for what they did to my country a thousand years ago! ([User:Willsk72]) 16:00, 3 Janury 2009 (GMT)92.11.39.241 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What you two above are missing here is that most British companies, banks, elite and even Queen herself have made their fortunes back then. We are not talking about Vikings plunging the world thousand year ago. These institutions, companies and families are still there and they acquired their wealth and power using dirty money. Who were the stock holders of the East India Company and who are their heirs now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.8.9 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The preceeding comment is a fair one except for a few things. All the money that the monarchy would of made through the opium trade (through its shares in the East India Company) were taken by the government along with any money made by the Crown estates etc in an agreement between William III and the British government. In return the monarch would recieve a yearly sum of money (almost like a pension) which they would live off (and this is still the case). Also it is true that some British companies and families that profited from the trade are still living off this profit now but how many other companies and families from other countries from all sorts of ventures (if i may use the term) would have to give their money back for doing things that would now be called immorral and how about all those rich Chinese businessmen who use virtual slave labour to make their money. Your point is a fair one and i completely agree but those businesses that made money from the opium trade are now smaller in number and i expect a few more will go in the near future. Seriously with the Vikings though, some Viking families will of survived of plundered English gold/silver etc for hundreds of years. Just because its further in the past doesnt mean its less bad. In fact i bet quite a bit of money circulating through the Scandinavian systems can still trace its origins back to England. Also in defence of the person above me why should i (a humble english peasant) apologise for what some big old english companies did. They were probably persecuting my family at the time as well. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would definitively say that the Chinese POV is far more objective than the British POV. The British POV merely tries to justify their past crime. It would amount to say that China's Communist Rule and crimes are British's fault for impoverishing and destabilizing the Chinese nations, thus every crime committed by Mao's regime is partly the fault of the British and the Soviet Union.

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

I agree and I have literally just been through the educational system, all i got taught about the British Empire was the slave trade and the industrial revolution (foreign policy was not deemed important), I had to do my own research. ([User Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Britain imports opium into China, Britain makes profits - well nearly. British owned ships transport opium from India to the seas off the coast of China where they were sold (for silver, possibly tea, sugar too) to Chinese merchants who took the chests ashore and sold the opium on. So yes doubtless British merchants profited, but do you think the Chinese merchants did it for free (especially given the later legal penalties)? No, both sides profited. When ports were opened up trade could only happen in the ports, it would have been quite easy for a small armed force to police the import of large quantities of opium. Pbhj (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
China attempts to ban opium because of its devastating social consequences and adverse health effects (of which the British know full well) - as has already been said opium use (eating like in India, smoking like in China, drinking, tablets, tinctures) was popular in Britain at the time (amongst the rich) and wasn't considered a great evil rather a useful panacea. The reasons for the Imperial edicts to ban opium use aren't clear. Opium was purchased from other nationals and also produced in the country. Opiates are the basis of many (strong, refined) pain killing preparations still in use today, they were used in diluted forms trivially in earlier times - like for menstrual pain in 19th Century Britain.
In 1729 Emperor Yongzheng apparently (though I can't find any citations for this) passed an edict outlawing the smoking of madak (tobacco and opium (poppy resin)) which most sources agree pushed the people to use pure opium instead; sadly this probably increased addiction and demand for the drug.
It wasn't then til the 1890s that any serious medical efforts were made to show detrimental medical (and social) effects of opium use - the Christian missionaries (many of whom were doctors) to China in 1880-1900 apparently found most of their hospitals filled with opium users and made efforts to alert the international community and to cease the use. In 1890 the Permanent Committee for the Promotion of Anti-Opium Societies was established by the likes of Arthur Gostick Shorrock. Though some argue (see "Narcotic Culture" by Dikotter et al., link to conclusion on p.206) that this was just prohibitionist which was promulgated as propaganda to paint China as a victim of imperialist drug pushers. It was certainly no surprise that the sick used opium, one of few painkillers available.
Following Yongzhengs edict however it's not clear if the main thrust was anti-imperialism or beneficent concern for the Emperor's subjects. Evidence towards this might be found in considering the workers in these missionary hospital (eg in Shansi, Shensi provinces) being killed in the Boxer Uprising; surely if Empress Dowager Cixi wanted to drive out opium use for beneficent reasons then those who were treating the poor, providing aid for the famine stricken, helping to combat the proliferation of opium and encourage help to this end in their nations-of-birth (ie Westerners sending petitions for aid home), surely they should have been protected? Instead these were seen as part of the imperialist machine and driven out. It possibly started with noble ends, but after a couple of wars keeping sight of the internal problems and not just of killing any foreign devils wherever you could find them seems to have been too hard. There's definitely more to this which has probably been hidden by the editing of historic records (quite popular it seems for Chinese rulers, cf Cixi!). Pbhj (talk) 15:06, 10 July 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)

I think it a bit extreme to say that opium was legal in Britain. There were explicit laws that prohibited the EIC from trading opium and exporting it from India which was why companies like Jardine and Matheson came into being. To buy the opium from the EIC (or through EIC managed auctions) and carry it to China. Chinese ships were used to carry the opium from the 'opium clippers' to the shore because otherwise the companies would have been kicked out of Canton by the Chinese authorities. China had become quite strict about opium laws and were very concerned about the effects of opium addiction and people like jardine were very aware of this. Local merchants, while profiting to some extent, were also being squeezed by both sides. And the war itself was really a pretext to open up the chinese market to British companies (Jardine, smart man that he was, could see that the future was not in opium but in British commodities). It's been a while since I looked at it but the balance of trade and the amount of revenue to EIC and J&M etc from opium is very instructive (Maurice Collis has written an excellent book on the subject). No. Let's face it. The whole situation was exploitative and the only excuse is that the world was different in the mid-19th century. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it a bit extreme to say that opium was legal in Britain. are you saying it, laudanum for example, was illegal (prior to 1906)? Citation? Chinese ships were used to carry the opium from the 'opium clippers' to the shore because otherwise the companies would have been kicked out of Canton by the Chinese authorities. that's precisely the point, the local ships could have been stopped quite easily with a few deaths by cutting, either that or the Chinese participants were getting a lot more out of it than supposed. As for not allowing the EIC to bring opium back, weren't we getting it from Turkey at the time? And yes, exploitation appears to be the root of nearly all political systems actually used in the world. Pbhj (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Disposal of opium and letter to Queen

I find both these issues hard to understand at the article, it says in one part opium was mixed with lime and dumped at sea, in another mixed with lye in a canal, was it both? Also it states an appeal was made directly to the Queen of England, but she never saw it. Historian932 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hero in the war against opium?

I'm pretty sure proclaiming a historical figure as a hero is a problem for NPOV. 87.246.64.2 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Unless there are WP:RS that he is/was perceived as a hero. Even so, it shouldn't be in the section title. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is more nationalist Bias. He has been turned from a historical footnote to an anti-drug paragon by the Communist Party's propaganda machine. I'm also going ot take issue with the fact that this particular hero is not only mentioned extensively within the section about the first drug war, but has been given his own section, of equal importance with either War. This really needs to be corrected. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The French Role

Once again i take as my fountain of knowledge 'Victoria's Wars' by David Saul but during the second opium war the French also joined the British invasion force with General Charles Cousin-Montauban leading the French army and Baron Gros leading the French diplomacy in China at the time. Though the French had a smaller role than the British they were certainly there and played their part in storming Chinese forts etc. I'm sorry i cannot go into more description of the French role as this is where my knowledge ends. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now briefly added a small description of the part played by the French in the Second Opium wars. Please feel free to change what you believe to be wrong.--Willski72 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

This is at least one war where the victors didn't get to write the history books, since simply calling it the Opium War is an acknowledgement that the British Empire was in the wrong. It's too bad history books don't refer to the American Civil War as the Slavetraders' Rebellion, which is what it really was. CharlesTheBold (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

This article gives the general information about the Opium Wars that someone without previous knowledge would benefit from, yet it lacks to point out the effects and significance of the events, such as why the Opium Wars were important and what were the lasting effects, especially since as recently as 1997 a treaty was negitiated for the return of Hong Kong that is directly related to the outcome of the Opium Wars. This article also failed to mention important aspects as to why Britian had so much power over China and how the use of railroads helped spread the western influence while hindering the native Chinese industries. It also needed to discuss in more detail the events of the Boxer Rebellion and China's opposition to outside control to get the full value of the events of the Opium War. In conclusion, this was a brief article and needed much more detail to fully understand the nature, causes, events, lasting effects and signifance of the Opium Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisaLou (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Significance of Lord Earl George Macartney

Lord Earl George Macartney is mentioned in one sentence in this article, and the articles seems to downplay his importance and historical significance in the embassy of China. Does anyone know why? I know that he is linked, but I think it would be beneficial for those who do not know much about the Opium Wars to understand that Britain did not unleash an opium trading monster upon an unassuming China. Macartney offered a peaceful trading accommodation, and China refused. Hum313 pepp (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)hum313_peppHum313 pepp (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that Lord Macartney should have more mention, but it's presumptive to assume the British would have stopped trading opium even if all the ports were "open." Spike888 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

British possession of Chinese Artifacts from this period

I remember back when I was growing up in China my parents used to tell me all kinds of stories about the "evil" British invading my homeland inciting drug use and annexing Hong Kong. Of course I was too young back then to really know all the facts, and the Chinese censor on "foreign propaganda" didn't really help things.

One of the most vivid memory I have of those stories involved the British troops ransacking Chinese historic museums during the Opium Wars, and they either destroyed or stole the priceless historic artifacts and proceeded to light the museums on fire. According to my parents, the British Government is still in possession of at least some of these artifacts today.

If anyone know of any academic or at least reliable source that can confirm this information, I think it would contribute a great deal to the neutrality of this article. Let's face facts, this article has western bias plastered all over it. Zkevwlu (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that this article about the 'opium wars' has western bias written all over it is inaccurate. If anything, it clearly states the basic activities between the British and the Chinese regarding the opium and the affect it was having on the Chinese population, as well as who was making out by the trade between them. Which in my view accredits the Chinese for the quality of their products opposed to what the British had to offer for them besides silver. To determine that both of those points was a bad thing is up to the reader to decide, or investigate more into it in order to present other facts for reasonsable motives stemming from both nations. If anything, the inclusions of the commentaries by the politicians of that day, by the author, seem to establish that it was wrongful for the British to declare war for their cause. And that the Chinese were undeserving of a British military assault. To further support my claim, the author used commentaries that critisiized the British that were of the same race as the wrong doers of the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.100.159 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the attitude towards sea trade the same between the Qing court and the Ming court?

There are a few issues with the overtly easy statement saying that the court of Qing Dynasty shared a same attitude towards trading with foreign nations. Firstly although Ming did halt official sea trade after Yongle's reign, much activities carried on at civilian levels [1], and in particular after the Ming court was over-thrown by the rebellion Li Zhicheng and later the Qing army, when trading with Southeast Asia was much needed for funding the resistance. Trading through the sea route therefore was active throughout Ming. Secondly, the Evacuation Order (遷界令) of early Qing that another part of this article also mentioned (but without mentioning the actual name of the event) had virtually killed all maritime activities for over 20 years, which was a major factor that retarded the development of sea trade. Thirdly, civilian levels of trading with both the West and other countries had resumed development as early as Qianlong's time [2], the over simplification of the restriction of sea trade as a cause of the British initiative for opium smuggle is not a good reflection of the cause-effect of the events of the Opium Wars.

And another minor point: although it is true that the Qing court was overthrown eventually in 1911 (not 1912, officially), the effects of the Opium Wars were, unlike for the Boxer Rebellions, only indirect causes. The corresponding sentence in the introduction needs to be reworded slightly to reflect that.

If there are no other opinions in 2 days after this post, I shall make the corresponding corrections to the article. Kwanchungleung (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-British bias

Nowhere is mentioned that until the 1868 Pharmacy Act, anybody could import opium into Britain as well. On top of that, this article implies that the assumption made in Lin's 1839 letter to Queen Victoria, that opium was prohibited in Britain, was actually true. Britain's behaviour during the Opium Wars was odious enough without trying to make it sound worse than it was. I will modify the article appropriately unless someone is privy to information to which I am not (which is very possible!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naymetayken (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please modify it. It reads more like a piece of nationalist Chinese propaganda. 91.125.22.156 (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased towards the Chinese nationalist POV

The Second Opium Wars section has no citations and strives with emotional language to paint the British as the villains of the piece. If you look at the facts of the matter it's far more complicated, especially since the Chinese deemed themselves as superior to the rest of the world and demanded the world conduct trade with them in a Lord-Vassal manner, with the Chinese as the lord and everyone else as a vassal. Sickeningly biased, I hope this isn't what they teach in the schools of China, no wonder so many of them hate the British. 91.125.22.156 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the British acted like barbarians--just like Genghis Khan we could say--and thought themselves as superior. The Chinese might have been just as racist, but they did not act like barbarians and thought that exploring/conquering the world was barbaric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.245.9 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

War is barbaric. The objective of wikipedia is to relate all significant facts in an unbiased manner, not to lay blame on either side. You Chinese Nationalists make me sick. Grow some balls and sign your posts. FunkyDuffy (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just some facts

  • 1. The Qing Dynasty has nothing to do with communism. If you sincerely see a connection, you ought to recheck your history books.
  • 2. POV is when the article hides events on one side, or misrepresents. Say, the Chinese killed British troops and the British killed Chinese troops. If the article does not mention either, it would be POV. Solving hidden event POV, if it exists, must only be done by ADDING INFORMATION. Misrepresentation POV, is only when information is LITERALLY NOT REAL OR IRRELEVANT, or black propaganda. Merely stating one side executed an action is not POV, regardless of how unmoral the action is, as long as it really happened.
  • 3. Apparent favor for either side is relative. If I read biased textbooks first, I would based my standards for neutrality on them, and ironically see unbiased articles as biased. Something appearing biased to me might actually be neutral, for my standards might be deluded by first textbook readings. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I'm thinking that perhaps this should be changed into a disambiguation page instead of one article trying to cover two separate wars. See for example, the Anglo-Sikh wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars. Spellcast (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - I think this might also help to decrease the Chinese Nationalist bias by spreading it thinner. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - At the moment there is duplication inherent in having three articles. Arguably, the two Opium Wars are not connected but rather two separate wars started by the British on equally flimsy pretexts. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Support Our readers are not helped by having three separate and uncoordinated articles which repeat a good deal of material. I can see an argument for one article, though two articles seem better to me, but three articles don't make sense. ch (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made the disamb page. The main problem I saw was having uncoordinated and fragmented info spread across different articles. For example, someone might add something here about the first war but not in the corresponding article. There's always the history if anyone thinks any useful info can be added elsewhere. Spellcast (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point - on the case. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree on two articles 75.18.196.20 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Jay

dabconcept status

I severely disagree with the classification of this as a "concept" disambig. The opium wars were two historical events, and are not conceptual in nature. FunkyDuffy (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree with you strongly. The events we now commonly refer to as The First Opium War and The Second Opium War were intricately linked to each other (conceptually), even much, much more tightly than were WWI and WWII. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

third opium war

someone should put an article about NATO aggression on Afghanistan and the growth of opium production as it's consequence. also the making of a opium distribution base in kosovo, for the european customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.224.181 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference to the United States in the second paragraph

It is deceptive, to say the least, to include the United States in this sorry British affair in only the second paragragh of this article. Hence it has been removed. Rodney215 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear if you mean it is deceptive, because you deny the US involvement, or if you mean it is deceptive because the article should be expanded to include more information about how extensive the US involvement really was. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
American involvement was by individual smugglers. If and when they were intercepted by the British, who considered themselves owners of the opium trade, their opium was treated as contraband,confiscated and forcibly sold to the Chinese. The Opium trade wasn't just sanction by the British Government. It was owned by the British Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.40.16 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Growth of opium trade

User:Pawyilee/sandbox/opium trade contains an extract from the journal of Edmund Roberts (diplomat) on the growth of opium trade, 1817-1832, and I'm asking for help incorporating an appropriate bit into this article. I'd also appreciate advice on how to post any or all of his journal to Wikisource. I've read the directions there, and they baffle me. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reversion to 28 October 2012

I reverted the page to the version of 28 October 2012 because there had been a quick succession of individual changes by new editors, most of whom had made edits to no other pages, which resulted in wrong formatting, incoherent and ungrammatical sentences, etc. etc. etc. ch (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How about some help incorporating the Roberts' report linked above? --Pawyilee (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I reverted out good edits. I'd be glad to help put them them back but after searching through, I can't find the Roberts material. Could you tell me what or when it was? ch (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Here: User:Pawyilee/sandbox/opium trade --Pawyilee (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood, sorry, I thought that the material had been added and that I reverted it out. I looked at the Edmund Roberts article and was very impressed with the good work you did there. I learned a lot. I don't have time right now to do anything, but if it's ok, I'll come back tonight or tomorrow and sort things through. Maybe you and I together can figure out how to put the Roberts stuff on the Wikisource thing. Cheers. ch (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No one has added reference to Roberts' report as yet. Is anyone elese interested?

Import volume chronology

The following paragraph before my edit was created in the edit on 23:34, 24 September 2012 by Tibetsnow (talk · contribs) et al.:

In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1800 it amounted to over 4,500 chests annually.[1] In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tons), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000.[2]

Given that the article is about the Opium War(s), it seems imperative not to insert the statistics for 1838 at 40,000 chests (right before war), especially since it was available alongside the earlier year stats in source [1] (Cambridge Illus. Hist. China). I think 40K is the modern consensus figure (though I won't go into arguing right here).

In the second sentence above, the 1858/70K chest stats was given unsourced. But Googled sources giving this stat also gave 1838/20K generally, making them incongruous with the 1838/40K consensus datasets. Reluctant to leave it as is, I have "quarantined" the second sentence with the 70K stats, though I have leaft the work to others to making the presentation of these sets of data compatible. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The unsourced 1858 stats that I "footnoted out" is data during the Arrow War (2nd war), so you can argue such data does properly belong to this article on the grounds that it covers both "Opium Wars". However, I am not still not inclined to favor mixing the one set of data with the other. Rather, I am more inclined to throw in another vote for "support" under the #Disambiguation page, as I too see numerous problems (redundancy, inconsistency) with retaining this article which is mostly a duplication of First Opium War. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1841-a-window-on-victorian-britain-475516.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ 陳國棟, 東亞海域一千年, 遠流出版, 2005
  2. ^ 陳國棟, 東亞海域一千年, 遠流出版, 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opium_Wars/Archive_1&oldid=615534046"