Talk:First Opium War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

british opium

Would be interesting to know from where the British obtained the opium to trade to China. Tempshill 19:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They established large plantations in their Indian possessions, making India the largest producer of Opium in the world. Lisiate 20:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 is slightly misleading. Did Europe really have trouble finding goods to import to China because China was so well-developed? As the outcome of the war suggests, Europe was more developed. There certainly weren't such troubles. --68.77.118.232 23:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 23:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was definitely a lack of demand for European trade goods, although I doubt that China's level of development was the cause. We should remember that even well into the 20th Century the vast majority of Chinese lived in rural areas.

Perhaps it is also helpful to note that China was almost entirely self-sustained in its own life style and economic system, even though it was a less developed life-style compare to Europe at that time. Many products of a developed society are also more useful in a developed society. For instance, one might imagine that clocks would have been highly in demand after they were introduced to China. But Chinese society has long since developed a system for time keeping in their own way, which was less efficient and accurate, but nevertheless satisfied the demand of the society at that time. Accurate time keeping really only became necessary after industrialization. So it is understandable that nobody wanted to buy clocks other than the very wealthy and powerful who had the urge to own precious things. Of course, the trade restriction Ming Dynasty imposed has kept the entire nation unexposed to anything the West invented. It is hard to miss something one never had.

It should also be noted that opium importation was undertaken primarily by private individuals, including many American merchants. The British government became involved fairly late in the proceedings, when it essentially ratified the actions of the opium merchants and seized the opportunity to force open Chinese ports.

This article isn't exactly encyclopedic. Ningbo isn't "nearby" Guangzhou, it's a few hundred kilometers away in another province (Zhejiang, then maybe known as Chekiang). Please move to rectify this, anyone.

Thanks

POV

The sentence:

The conflict began a long history of Chinese suspicion of Western society that still lingers today in East Asia.

in the first paragraph, seems based on speculation rather than source. Does the author have any survey or statistical facts to support that statement? Otherwise please remove it. It skews the whole tone of the subsequent article. There are no persons alive who remember the Opium Wars, thus while interpretations of history may affect current Chinese thinking, it can only be a partial factor, one far outweighed for example by Cold War diplomacy and modern Western attitudes.

Skewed Wikipedia entries are also not going to help resolve any such issues.

Also the whole paragraph beginning:

However, in July 1839 rioting British sailors destroyed a temple...

is not the best English and would benefit from being extensively rewritten.

• The title is POV too, most neutral historical texts (in English language) use "First Sino-British War". Pbhj (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the British started the War, calling it "Sino-British War" already wouldn't be neutral to start with, or even factual.

• What is un-neutral or un-factual about "Sino-British War"? Wars are often named after the major warring parties. To my knowledge, the sequence doesn't indicate anything about who "started" the war. KellyArt (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping-pong authorities

Please advise what "Ping-pong authorities" at the beginning of the 5th paragraph refers to. Thanks.--Tonyho 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Chinese motivations

"Alarmed with the reverse in silver flow after opium trade took hold, the Qing government attempted to end this trade on public health grounds, since numerous opium addicts were appearing in trading ports throughout China."

This sentence suggests rather cynically and quite possibly in racist fashion that the "public health grounds" were pretextual rather than justified in fact. While I do not have the specific facts at hand, it does not take much reasoning to understand that this was not so. Britain had the explicit aim of reversing the balance of trade from their insatiable demand for Chinese tea and did so. When you further consider that the all trade was funneled into discrete locales, the magnitude of the problem and the government's right to address it should be patently obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.146.199 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 July 2006

The Daoguang emperor pretty much stated the same economic fears in his red brush commentary to treasury reports. Initially the before and after Qianlong were happy to turn a blind eye to opium imports. It seemed in nature very similar to other imports of "raw materials" as the silver flowed from the middle class merchants to the British, who could then buy even more tea (by the way, itself a stimulant drug), the profits of which flowed into the monopoly, thus creating an efficient indirect tax. However, as the British broke the tea monopoly by planting in African & India, and applied mass production plantation methods to opium production, the trade went off the tracks. Silver not only began to flow out, but the huge increase in supply of opium pushed the price down to where even the poorest Chinese could afford it. It is very interesting that Modern China's trade policy is very similar to that of the early & middle Qing, and the huge trade deficit in the later case may yet lead to another "war", hopefully a more peaceful trade war, but the large build up of the Chinese Military indicates that they are not going to take this risk, and may even be the first to use military force.

I just came to ask the same thing: What is the source for this (yes, cynical and possibly racist) attribution of motive? The Chinese authorities seized something like 2 million pounds of opium in 1839—and while I don't have population figures for the 19th-century Qing empire handy, illicit consumption of that much opium would indicate a serious public health problem for any country in the world even today. Perhaps the Daoguang Emperor was really concerned with widespread addiction to a harmful drug. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution to the problem posed by this sentence is to divide it into two. That is, "The Qing authorities were alarmed by the loss of silver in their economy. Even worse, a significant portion of their intellectual community, especially low-level government bureaucrats, were addicted to this drug, giving even more incentive to the authorities to end the trade." On the other hand, I do not see how it is racist to imply that economic motives were important. They surely were. Besides, what this paragraph omits is that the trade had been banned three decades earlier, on public health grounds, before the economic problems began. That means two things: one, the trade was taking place despite the prohibition, and two, the original motivation was health, but by 1838, the economic factor was at least as important in motivating the Chinese officials.

By the way, if there were only two million users - and that number, given above, really should be cited - then that means that each user was consuming a pound of opium a year. I have no idea how much opium they used back then, but it sounds high to me, which may mean even more users than was estimated. - a Vermont college teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulknpm (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) h

Where is the racism in ascribing motivations to the Chinese that are fully in line with "white" behaviour? It may or may not be fair. It may or may not be cynical. There is, however, nothing implied that would be beyond very many European governments, past and present. 88.77.132.156 (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST

I am placing this as Start class; it is an excellent start. It's of a fair length, and offers some details. But for such an important and complex topic, this article could afford to be much longer. The actual events of the war are hidden in "Background" - the entire article progresses from "Background" to "Settlement" with no section for the actual war itself. A better, clearer, description of which battles were fought could also help. Lumping all the fighting into one paragraph just doesn't work. The introduction in particular could also use some expansion. I'm glad that it mentions the overall historical significance of the war - that's crucial to the average reader. So, yes, general expansion, and if possible, pictures. LordAmeth 12:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to this article to find some information in reference to a discussion of European domination of the world after 1500, and found the article sadly lacking. Among the pieces of information that were missing I most severly desired to know China's population in 1838? Next, I asked myself, what percentage of the population was addicted? Do we know what demographics? (Was it largely young bureaucrats, as I tend to recall from my research, or was it an across-the-board problem?) Also, how many Chinese and British soldiers fought on each side? What battles took place? Was it largely a land war, or mostly a naval war? Why were the Chinese so soundly and quickly defeated? (Among the technological advances, I know that the British used steam ships to surprise the Chinese, yet that surprise was also omitted.) What percentage of the Chinese soldiers was addicted to opium? Zero? Fifty? Did addiction among the soldiers (or officials) lead to a conflict of interest in the armed forces? There might be a lot of information here, but almost as much is missing.--Hulknpm (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Opium

What were the social conditions that made opium so attractive? Obviously Western intervention forced opium to be widely available but why was it so attractive to the general populace? I've never heard a real answer to this question. Jztinfinity 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Try "Narcotic Culture" by Dikotter et al., this link goes to the conclusion on p.206. It's a good read! Pbhj (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a history of opium use in China and Asia in general, in the form of madak, until 1729. Opium happened to also cause very pleasing effects to the user and at the same time caused debilitating problems when frequently used recreationally, not to mention the problem of dependency in a time when supply was controlled via the British monopoly. Imagine if tea caused the same effects, it would've wreaked havoc on the British, as even in its largely harmless state the taxation problem and demand problems it was causing was already becoming enormous. Karajanis 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That explanation is easier, but simpler still; why did distilled alcohol become a social problem? Cigarettes? Crack cocaine? Methampethamines? In all of these cases, the answer is that addictive substances became technologically easier to produce and distribute. 140.247.163.157 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yongzheng's prohibition in 1729 was quite similar to the American prohibition (and elsewhere) of alcohol. When people can't get beer anymore they end up distilling firewater/whisky/poteen at home, beer is controllable by most, the firewater leads to more health and social problems. When madak was outlawed folks dropped the tabacco use and just used (smoke, eat) opium. The "tea" question of User:Karajanis is interesting as it was the demand for tea (or perhaps more rightly the social use of caffeine, a drug) that required Britain to act to get back some of the sliver leeching out to China. Pbhj (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

- At the time China's monetary system was silver-based and in fact silver was the monetary base in most other countries as well. China's luxurious exports did not just end up in UK, instead trades between China and it's suzerainty sphere in East Asia were also prospering. As drinking tea became fashionable in UK, so did quality Chinese tea attracted the British society, and the unbalance trade between China and UK occurred. Forecasting from the national perspective, excessive import of Chinese tea caused great financial problem to the British government, because in return Chinese showed little interest and bought a few British items in two-way trade. As this severing situation continued, opium was chosen by the British government to earn the great loss of silver by the Chinese tea. Health was not the concern that opium would make mankind addicted and destroyed one's life, but balanced account of the trade between the UK and China was the goal to achieve.

Puzzled by article

The article leaves some important points unclear. The first sentence says the war was fought with the aim of forcing China to import British opium. The more detailed account doesn't support that though. Either the first sentence should be changed or material added to fill out the narrative.

The more detailed account says that the Chinese and British couldn't agree on various issues, so some British official tried to establish a boycott and wasn't altogether successful. Then there was fighting that started with British attempts to enforce the boycott against British dissidents, apparently in Chinese waters. So was the war an attempt to enforce a boycott that snowballed? And what were the demands behind the boycott? The article doesn't say.

It appears that the Chinese were annoyed because the British wouldn't let them try some British murderers and the British were annoyed because the Chinese had confiscated 2.500,000 pounds of British opium. The account of the settlement says that the British got extraterritoriality and compensation for the confiscated opium. It says nothing though about future opium imports or why the Chinese couldn't have forbidden them. So if the war was fought to force China to import British opium it appears from the article to have been a failure even though the British were victorious from a military standpoint. Is that right?

Jim Kalb 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Very confusing at times, especially on matters regarding to Charles Elliot and the British boycott. I don't know much about the war myself, so it would be very helpful if somebody clarified in the article. =] Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I get confused on the opening of hostilities. Are the British ships attacking the East India ships? (The poor English undermines the credibility of the article.)

The sentences "In one isolated incident, in 1818, the Laurel carried word to Sydney of a US ship laden with Opium and treasure which was invaded by Chinese pirates. The crew of the US vessel had all been killed, but for the escaping first mate, who later identified the pirates to the authorities." Is rather unclear in its purpose and its meaning. Is the "Laurel" the name of a ship, the title of an official, or something else entirely? Also, what does it have to do with the rest of the paragraph that ostensibly discusses the state of British trade with China and the ramifications of the importation of opium? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.203.161 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I suspect that this incident is included as an attempt to tie the U.S. to the Opium war. (While in China, I had some teachers tell me that the U.S. had attacked China.)

No attempt needed, the evidence speaks for itself. The U.S. did attack China (if not in an overt formal declaration of war, then certainly economically and culturally by actively participating in the illegal opium trade). No doubt some US merchant vessels were involved in both the first and the second Opium Wars, even though the US is only formally considered to be a "belligerent" of the Second Opium War. It is well known and well documented (although not well discussed in the USA) that much of the "oldest money" in America was made via the illegal Opium trade during this era, as well as from piracy and other forms of theft, similar to how so many (more recent) American family fortunes were made in relation to running alcohol during the Prohibition. If you are American, this is part of the dark side of American history that you probably don't get even one whiff of from your school books. In Canada, we tend to celebrate our historical ties with criminal activity (i.e. see Al Capone); it tends to liven the discussions a wee bit. Maybe the truth hurts because it tends to support the common saying often attributed to Honore de Balzac, which many capitalists prefer not to acknowledge. Also of interest for North Americans, coolies played a large role in building our nations. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

An attack on the the entire population of the United States. Unlike the British, U.S. involvement in the Opium Wars was not national policy. The British government was the driving force in addicting millions of Chinese to Opium. The British found the opium trade very profitable. Some of the "oldest money" in the U.K., including the Royal Family, can be traced to opium. And you can bet Canadians got their share. Al Cook from the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.44.252 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no academic, history background. However, my understanding of the War is related trade rights and Silver. As a national body, China had no interest in things outside China. The trade currency was Silver and this put pressure on Europe which could not mine enough for trade balance. Meanwhile, at a corporate, individual level, Europe was successful in addicting many to Opium, making it lucrative. However, Chinese authorities banned the import of the produce, putting pressure on Silver. The result of the war was that China's ability to restrict the importation was denied.

'The Laurel' was a ship that sailed from Guangzoh to Sydney in 1818. On board were the explorer John Blaxland and the first known Chinese Migrant to Australia, Mak Sai Ying. The ship bore news of the incident regarding the US trade vessel, highlighting the nature of opium trade and tensions experienced at sea at that time. Significantly, Mak Sai Ying returned to China for five years, possibly working import exports, and returning to Sydney two years before the first Opium War. The nature of his Chinese connections and family are currently not known.

I have a natural curiosity regarding Mak Sai Ying, having learned of his existance only recently. DDB 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DDB you say "Europe was successful in addicting many to Opium". That's not true. British trade for tea was leaking silver to China and leaving problems in Britain due to the gold standard (backing of the currency). British interests considered how the balance of silver could be reversed and looked at Chinas imports. China imported a lot of opium as its home production wasn't enough to meet it's needs. Britain met the existing demand ahead of competition like Portugal who were also supplying, amongst other goods, opium. There were several incidents, including the ban of opium import (and seizure of British owned opium by the Chinese government) - which led to an embargo enforced by the British Navy which the Chinese Navy tried to break (trying to allow British vessels without Opium through). This with some other diplomatic issues on territoriality led to open conflict. Pbhj (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

i think this is a legimate statment. note that DDB did not say "britain was successful in addicting many to opium" but rather Europe was successful in addicting many to Opium and yet you (Pbhj) have interpeted it as such and countered by saying that the portugese were also in on it, which last i've checked was also in europe. this is an glaring example of your ulterior motives in editing this page as extensively as you did. even when someone is not blaming britain you have taken it to mean as such and attacked. i suggest you admit to why you are really editing this page or rethink as whether you should contribute to the disscussion.

I have not studied the First Opium War in seven years, so I cannot help fixing this portion of the article. However, the section on the actual fighting of the war is not chronologically coherent, does not contain anywhere near enough information for a war that took more than two years to fight, had at least one sentence that began with a passive voice so that the actor is disguised, and omitted the role of technology and naval warfare in helping the British to victory. To me, it is a waste of space on Wikipedia's hard drive, and needs to be replaced with a good account, ASAP. _ Hulknpm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulknpm (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong and the Opium War's Secret History

just read the article published in The New York Times - The Opium War's Secret History, by KARL E. MEYER on June 28, 1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpcondor (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd remarks

There are many strange remarks in this article. Here's one..

"Britain had been on the gold standard since the 18th century, so it had to purchase silver from continental Europe to supply the Chinese appetite for silver,"

The author seems to be implying some sort of causation or logical link between the British monetary scheme and the sourcing of the silver for trade with China. I completely fail to see any link. As there is, and was, negligible silver mining in Britain, silver would obviously have to be purchased from Europe or South America in order to trade it with China in exchange for tea or other Chinese goods. The Chinese prefered to be paid in silver for their export goods. To buy things in China, the British would first need to acquire silver from other countries because they mined none of their own. This would be the case, regardless of whether Britain used a gold standard or a silver standard or any other monetary arrangement in its own economy. Eregli bob (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not odd at all as not being on a Silver standard meant that the private citizens of the UK (those doing business with the Chinese at this point) would have little need to amass silver up to this point. Really there should be an article describing all this, something about the roadblocks necessary to overcome for Europeans to trade with the Chinese. Could be a very interesting article. marnues (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph detailing the English 'as the biggest drug trafficking criminal organisation in the world' is beyond comprehension. Given that Opium was not illegal in Britain, and much of Europe - seen as a beneficial painkiller it is a sweeping statement that just retriatriates the usual views put forward by the prohibitionist missionaries of the 19th century, demonising opium to make it into a political tool. People choose to smoke - China had a huge history of it. The drug is not active forcing itself upon the passive person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.210.199 (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(*sigh* -- sadly, this is not the first time I've heard such attempted justifications.)

Here's a thought exercise: compare Chinese policy regarding opium to that of the modern-day United States regarding cocaine. You'll find them rather similar; though the US does use a small amount of the drug as a legal anesthetic, generally the policy is one of strict prohibition. Almost all the coke that comes in does so illicitly, to be snorted/smoked/injected solely to produce a high.

Right. Now imagine that the US government's efforts to interdict smuggling became much more effective. In response to this development, the government of Colombia, now openly in league with drug traffickers, sends troops and ships to Florida (I know, it's unlikely, but try to imagine) to ensure that the imports keep flowing.

What would you think of that? How do you think the Chinese government reacted?

Analgesic use of opium was not the concern. Widespread addiction to powerful narcotics can and does cause serious social problems, which I need not enumerate here. (Go read The Corner if you're curious.) 71.248.115.187 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(have you thought of registering? you seem to make a lot of contributions, I think it helps others to trust you if you register)

Have you seen "Narcotic Culture" by Dikotter et al., link to conclusion on p.206. It's a pretty convincingly argued case concerning the addiction issue and gives strong arguments as to why addiction was not an issue, or at most a very minor one, in the use of opium (madak, etc.) at the time. One of the points made is that it was a social institution. Opium/Madak was smoked in a "tea room" (tea being a ying substance to opiums yang, or vice-versa) was about 5% as strong as morphine in the opium resin, which when smoked looses about 70-80% or the remaining opiate. It's pretty well compared to alcohol use in the West now (or Pot use in Netherlands (and USA if current reports are to be believed)). Sure some were heavily addicted but only a very few. It was much later when more refined drugs started to be used that the problems really started to escalate. The comparison to using coke as an anaesthetic is poor. Opium was one of the few painkillers available, was an element in chinese medicine (so I've read) since 5th Century and was useful against the sorts of diseases around at the time - mainly disease associated with poverty. Dikotter et al. also argue that it was useful for China to blame it's problems on opium and to blame that on outside influence.

Whilst "The Corner" can give an incite into the effects of hard drugs it's not really a great source for consideration of the issues here being set c.150 years later (1993) and in an entirely different culture about half a world away. Remember the world was still just coming to terms with the idea that germs existed. There was no aspirin or paracetamol, widespread use of injection was years away. Travelling across China took months.

I don't doubt the elite of Britain wished to exploit China to their benefit, but then so did the Chinese merchants. Greed is a terrible thing. If Britain had introduced the opium or refined it or actually dealt it to the people then there would be a much stronger case for culpability. As for the protecting the trade, China wanted to dictate the trade it would allow (not opium, but other things were fine) Britain wanted to trade freely. British merchants tried to get through to trade, the British navy intervened and China tried to stop the navy blockade .. the First Sino-British War followed. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure the point you are trying to make is valid because if mass producing the drugs on the stipulation that it be only sold in china and making it available to people who previously have not been exposed to the drug does not count as introducing and dealing the drug i wonder what can be? and so you don't doubt that the elite of britain want to exploit china for their benefit but wouldn't actively creating a larger market for their product fall along those lines?

This is revisionism on a horrific scale.65.0.99.226 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

and really you must not know chinese society very well if you compare the merchant class of china with the elite of britain. in a confucian state the merchant class is ranked as the lowest order in society right below the farmers and peasants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.231.160 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While calling england the "biggest drug trafficking nation in the world" seems to be using "peacock terms", I think there is plenty of well-documented historical evidence that the English were in it to make money, and didn't really care what happened to China or the Chinese. Unfortunately I'm afraid that colonial/empire era England wasn't a very friendly country. TheStripèdOne (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave opinion over the perception of drugs. The fact is, the Chinese government told the British merchants that this substance was not to be sold in China. The U.S. government tells other governments not to sell certain substances in America. If a foreign government were to invade, defeat our army at every turn, and threaten Washington D.C. with widespread destruction that the U.S. was helpless to prevent, because we had seized the contraband items, then we would be in the same situation the Qing government was. And guess what, we would be outraged over the immoral behavior of that government. It is not just that the British invaded China, it is that they did it over such a stupid, immoral policy. If you are going to use force to support your private citizens, you should probably make sure they're not breaking the law first, right? Hulknpm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulknpm (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Narcotic Culture does provide an in depth history of drug use in China, before judging Britain so harshly you should see how Opium use was perceived in Britain at the time - it was given even given to babies to help them sleep. I think it is extremely easy for people to jump on board the 'evil narcotic' bandwagon in light of today's modern world and the view on narcotics that is widely held up today, but to suggest that Britain 'forced' this drug on an unwilling Chinese populace is ridiculous. Also, I recommend in regards to prohibition on part of the Manchu government to look at the way it went about attempting to control society, much of the prohibition laws in regards to opium and maduk useage can be seen in line with this policy rather than attempts to control an evil narcotic (this view was largely propagated by missionaries in the later centuries. For many in China smoking opium was not only a status of wealth, but as the only way to prevent sickness. (opiates also create constipation - great if you are suffering from some of the outbreaks that plagued south-east China). I understand the comparison you are attempting to make with the US/Columbia argument but the fallacy lies in the fact this is not the nineteenth century - we didn't have the knowledge about continued drug use that we do today then (note: the effects of pure opium consumption are very much still debated). This is not a discussion of cut cocaine entering the US markets today, it's important that you look away from modern conceptions and thus look at how it was viewed at the time. Opium was in later years grown by the Chinese to fund much (including the northern expedition).. It is important to understand the Zeitgeist of the day. This article is not balanced at all; ALSO Lord Palmerston was Foreign Secretary. NOT Prime Minister during the first Opium War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.192.251 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So many people argue the widespread medicinal use of opium and its unlikelihood of being seriously addictive makes the substance very different from other illicit drugs as cocaine. Note that cocaine was also once considered harmless, mass-produced mainly for medicinal purposes as an over-the-counter drug, and not seen as addictive, it was used leisurely by people of all ages. It was used for almost anything, from toothaches to an important ingredient in the original Coca-Cola recipe. But the views towards opiates have changed and living in the past isn't going to help. Cocaine is now a drug with serious prohibitions tied with it and military action taken against traffickers. This is the exact same case with opium and all other opiates. Narcotic Culture, which has been cited many times before, fails to differentiate opium from other major illicit drugs, all sharing similar if not identical history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.79.114 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to Taiping Rebellion

This is common knowledge, who thinks it needs a citation and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.60.196 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of reasons I can think of. 1) It's good to get citations for blanket assertions, the words used "almost certainly" suggest there's a degree of doubt; and on to that point ... 2) there were wide scale famines caused in turn by drought, I gather the Imperial forces could seize ones harvest for itself, that would lead to discontent, no? 3) if the rebellion was started due to the Qing government lacking any military power then you'd think it would be first concerned with strengthening military power and that doesn't seem to be the case. 4) There may be a question about religion in there too?

I didn't ask for the citation but my initial view is that it seems warranted. Provide a counterview that shows my position is completely opposite to a worldwide position of "common knowledge" and we might be able to drop the fact-tag. It should be pretty easy to provide a good citation if your position stands. Pbhj (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

examine your motivation for doing this. it seems you wish to challenge every edit that can be construed as linking the opium war/britain to anything negative. there is something to be said for defending your nation's history record against slander but you seem to want to absolve britain of any responsibility for the war but the bottom line is that one of the clauses that eventually came out of the war was the right for britain to resume trade in opium a drug that was causing economic and social strife in china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.231.160 (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

to pbhj, i suggest some new reference material as well. "The Chinese war : an account of all the operations of the British forces from the commencement to the Treaty of Nanking" while it may mirror your views well is just a bit dated being published in 1840.

the same to be said of your references to opium not being addictive coming from "List of works on victorian medicine pertaining to the question of addiction"

Causation of the war

"During the 19th century, trading in goods from China was extremely lucrative for Europeans and Chinese merchants alike. Due to the Qing Dynasty's trade restrictions, whereby international trade was only allowed to take place in Canton (Guangzhou) conducted by imperially sanctioned monopolies, it became uneconomic to trade in low-value manufactured consumer products that the average Chinese could buy from the British like the Indians did.

Instead, the Sino-British trade became dominated by high-value luxury items such as tea (from China to Britain) and silver (from Britain to China), to the extent that European specie metals became widely used in China..."

this introduction says that it was the Qing governments control over trade that excluded demand for "low-value" british made goods. but i wonder if that is the only reason or even if it was a reason. britain chief exports of the period were textiles and african slaves neither of which would have been in any demand in china.

and using statments such as "like the indians did" cheapens the whole argument because it seems to imply that because the indian fell in line and bought from the british that they were better and played by the rules of free trade set by john stuart mill's on liberty. but i wonder how much manufactured goods the indians really bought with as little purchasing power as they had —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.231.160 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Kow Tow ?

No mention of the rigid chinese protocol that forced the emperor and britan into not settling the war peacefully or of the restrictions of the britsh from the rest of the country except Canton due to Xenophobia. Also no mention of the British refusal to meet with anyone except the emperor and refusal to kowtow (kneel and place head on the ground 9 times) due to a belief that GB is greater than any other country. Article is skewed slightly in these respects..... Lbparker40 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

it seems that way because pbhj seem have to adopted the article and is bulldoging it against attempts to provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk • contribs)

War Article With No War in It

This article has a lot of content selection problems the biggest being that it is supposedly about the Opium War but barely describes the war at all. Most of the article is about diplomacy rather than the war itself. Another problem with the article is that it ignores the American role in the war which was significant both militarily and economically. Also, I agree with the above commentator that the article is misleading because it does not describe the cultural issues that contributed to the war which were manifold, complex and critical to the war's genesis. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this post was a year ago, I agree. The war section really doesn't give a good description of the war, the events leading to it, and the reasons for the conflict. Ideally, the whole section should be fundamentally re-written. Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

in reply to the first comment, the US did not much at all to do with the "first" opium war. The US did not have the same problems as the English. The US had many high value natural items to sell, such as Beaver Fur, American Gensing, rare hardwoods, etc, proof of this is that many US traders were Quakers out of Philidelphia who refused to sell opium or any intoxicant. If selling opium was the only way to go, then they would have been locked out. The British on the other hand were tried to sell advanced technology (metallurgically superior cannons & riles) and other manufactured goods, items which threatened the mandate of heaven, if it was known they had to be imported. Hence Qianlong's famous (racist) quote translated as We need nothing from the barbarians, We are complete in ourselves. It was only after the success of the British, and the opening up of other ports to the British, that the American traders began to feel they had to play catch up or risk loosing out in the tea trade to the US markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Immobile Empire (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This Article is still skewed in several respects including talk about britsh xenophobia and a neutral and unbiased look at the war itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbparker40 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this... In the second section, seecond paragraph, they say that some places restricted the use of the opium, because they were worried that people might abuse it or something. But isn't it better to be high then in pain? Why did they restrict it? If the people were dying because they had an arm blown off while fighting or something, what would they do if it was reestrict it? ..... sooooo confused.... They sound like us now... restricing stuff like drugs, expecting people to listen to it and not use it...

                                                Fooljewl (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Fooljewl 1/10/2010 9:41 pm

(p.s. sorry that was a dumb question....)

First Paragraph POV

The last clause in the first sentence is Eurocentric: (The war was fought) "...with the aim of securing economic benefits from trade in China." This clearly refers to the aims of the British, but the Chinese did not fight for no reason; to ignore their objectives in this sentence suggests that only the aims of West were valid and worth noting. KellyArt (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shift in viewpoint in this article

The viewpoint in this article has just shifted considerably ... as seen in the following set of changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=First_Opium_War&action=historysubmit&diff=412965696&oldid=409771507 Would a more knowledgeable person take a look at this? Djembayz (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the unsourced IP changes. I think the IP saying the Qing government "caused the single greatest scourge in asia" shows he clearly wasn't editing from a neutral point of view. Spellcast (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Spellcast, at the time opium probably was the greatest scourge in Asia, but I agree these changes are over the top. It would be better to show the economic and social damage caused by the drug. Alas, most coverage of this period in Sino-European relations weighs heavily in favour of the latter and there are few Western sources that truly show the negative impact of opium on China and its people. Philg88 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph, last sentence

There are at least two mistakes: (1) '...uneconomical to for the British...' and (2) it should be 'export... to China' rather than 'import'. It is also, besides these, still very poorly constructed. I'd correct it myself, but it's very ambiguous. Someone knowledgeable on the subject ought to rewrite it. Frerin (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Tea, caffeine, addiction

Similar point to the one being made above: "The addictive nature of Tea (caffeine) created ever growing demand for it, while acceptance of only silver in payment by China for tea resulted in large continuous trade deficits." I don't think it's correct to imply caffeine's (weakly) addictive properties are the reason that Britons demanded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaba (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to look at the edit and the discussion regarding whether or not Tea was addictive. I don't have a background in this topic, but I've read the edits since that was added and also the discussion. From an editorial standpoint, I would ask if the reason for the demand for tea is necessary at all. Could the article not just say that there was an ever growing demand for tea and that resulted in trade deficits? That, as near as I can tell, is the point, no? In the context of the article, doesn't it suffice to say that the demand for tea created the deficit and leave it at that? Just an observation. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if we replace drug with opium, and delete references to its narcotic & additive nature, just remark that demand for it drove the Qing Government to react. The Immobile Empire (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tea as a narcotic?

Background section, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:

  The addictive nature of Tea (caffeine) created ever growing demand for it... By 1817, the British hit upon 
  counter-trading in another narcotic, Indian opium... allowing the British to double tea exports from China to 
  England(along with its associated addictive caffeine) 

This is misleading. Tea is not a narcotic, the caffine levels in tea are relatively low, and caffine is considered only very slightly addictive, if at all (depends on the definition of 'addictive' used). It seems like someone is trying say that the trade in tea was dependent on widespread addiction, just like opium. This is not a valid comparison. If no source for these claims can be cited then these paragraphs should be amended to remove references to tea as addictive or as a narcotic, instead stating simply that tea became very popular in Great Britain (preferably citing a source for this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytale on (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Tea is a stimulant, not a narcotic. The original post did not make a claim that it is a narcotic, so how did you come to this conclusion. The term has be abused by the layman, most often by Americans. The term narcotic refers medically to any psychoactive compound with any sleep-inducing properties. Certainly caffeine does not induce sleep, do you agree.

Next, try telling a Mormon tea is not a addictive stimulant, then report back. We crave caffeine from tea less than in the past, as we get it in much higher doses from our modern processed foods, drinks, and even otc medications. To any people who had the very unsophisticated diets of their time; tea, cocoa, and coffee were all extremely addictive. The difference is that the social debilitation caused by tea (a stimulant) is less disruptive to commerce than opium (a narcotic). Cocaine addicts, while not ideal are far more socially productive than people with Heroin addictions, but certainly we recognize they both are addictions. The British social engineering effort of the 18th century to turn the nation from one drug - gin (hard alcohol -- a narcotic) to consumption to tea (a stimulant) and beer (a more mild dose of the same narcotic). Projecting 21st Century Red Bull lifestyles onto the 18th Century won't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Immobile Empire (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since tea is not a narcotic, we should remove the comparison another narcotic. Then, the reason for the success of tea in England in the 17/18th century is unlikely related to its supposed addictivity, which is very low: it is mostly a social process, and driven, it seems by the East India company. From History_of_tea#United_Kingdom: Merchantmen ships delivered fabrics manufactured in Britain to India and China but would return empty or partially full. To solve this problem the East India Company began a vigorous public relations campaign in England to popularize tea among the common people in Britain and develop it as a viable return cargo. The main issue, in fact, with insisting on tea as addictive, is to try to add a "symmetry" the opium war: implicitly saying "By importing Opium to China, England was just trying to correct the asymmetry that existed by importing tea in England". This was true from a commercial point of view: but the article tries to put it also on the question of how good or bad (for individual - addition to a narcotic) or for society (productivity loss, etc.) the dyssimetry was. Farialima (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is one addiction vs another, not can one class of addictive narcotic be compared with a class of addictive stimulant. Both drive demand, demand drives a market. In the case of the Britain, unlike Qing China, it would have been difficult to issue a edict banning the consumption of tea, and indeed, the cost of the addiction of tea was considered favorable when compared to hard drink, other than the outflow of sliver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hogarth As to the addictive property of tea, QianLong himself claimed that the British would dry up and die if China cut off the supply of tea & rhubarb (used as a laxative & considered necessary by the British due to their poor diet). This indicated that the major issue with tea consumption and demand driven addictive aspects was the flow of silver. The same was true for Qing China, Opium consumption was tolerated, even promoted by factions within the Empire. The Qing court only became signifcantly concerned when the flow into the treasury reversed. . May I suggest reading the actual Mcarthy reports or any detailed analysis of Macarthy's report </ref>(Peyrefitte 1992 p14,29, 120,318,321)</ref>. They clearly show there was strong attempts by the British government find British manufactured goods to replace the roll of opium in balancing the trade, but Qing China would have none of it. Pooh-poohing caffeine as being less evil than opium smacks of British bashing. Bashing the English sure is fun, and helps sooth the ego & hurt feelings of those who's ancestors were on the wrong end of the stick (including mine), but history shows is every human nation is quite willing to do what the English did and far more, but for complex reasons just lacked the ability. Get over it, and accept that tea is addictive, but that unlike the Qing, the British could not go around chopping off the heads of addicts, even trying to tax tea cost them the 13 colonies in North America (nor did they see why they should try to ban it, when compared to the hard alcohol narcotic problems) and hence could do very little to reign in growing demand for a addictive drug exported by China. Qing China on the other hand had the systems & power in place, but choose not to do so until the situation was too far gone. The Immobile Empire (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that tea is addictive is simply not true and so reference to this should be removed from the article. The same goes for the reference to tea as "another narcotic". I completely agree that British mearchants and government were very keen to stem the flow of silver caused by the popularity of tea and that opium provided a very convenient way to do this. However I do not agree that the popularity of tea was caused by addiction and I have not come across any claims to this effect in the literature. If you are aware of any sources that can back up the claims that tea is addictive please quote them. You paraphrase QuianLong but he can hardly be considered an authority on addiction.

"To any people who had the very unsophisticated diets of their time; tea, cocoa, and coffee were all extremely addictive." This is a new one to me. Have you any sources to back this up?

Here, you go:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2138954 and here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/wl412194360xj32t/ but I guess quoting all the medical literature in the world won't do much good. A lot of addicts are in denial of their addiction.The Immobile Empire (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pooh-poohing caffeine as being less evil than opium smacks of British bashing." No. Sorry this claim makes no sense.

Tea is not an addicitve drug and so we should delete references to it being so from this article.

Scytale on (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because Scytale say so, right, forget all the medical litterature & lines outside starbucks) which say he/she is wrong. The Immobile Empire (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine withdrawal includes headache, lethargy, irritability, and mental fuzzy-headedness. Some or all can occur among many daily caffeine consumers who abruptly stop their intake (9). Sometimes doses as low as 100 mg=d can provoke these symptoms, though daily caffeine consumption among Americans is estimated at about 280 mg=d or the equivalent of 2–3 cups of coffee (10, 11). Symptoms begin twelve to twenty-four hours after sudden cessation of continuous use, reach a peak at twenty to forty-eight hours, and resolve after ingesting caffeine Medical Litterature Summary

You might want to read Tolerance and withdrawal section of Wikipedia's own article on Caffeine.

Seems the literature is on this side of addiction, what's your (hidden?) agenda? You go from can't compare one drug to another, to not much caffeine in tea, to caffeine is not addictive, ... running around in circles, reminds me of negotiations tactics of the Qing. By the way, are you behind the attacks on my email accounts after this posting? The Immobile Empire (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

woah! you're getting very personal. Sorry, no hidden agenda here. caffine withdrawal can cause mild symptoms, agreed. This does not mean that it is considered addictive.

Great, lets here your medical opinion on what constitutes an addiction.The Immobile Empire (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are completely out of order. I have made no personal remarks about you. Please stop now. Scytale on (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw horse. The Immobile Empire (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what the others are trying to say is that the Opium War was not fought because the British were going through tea withdrawal and that comparing it to the addictive properties of opium is disingenuous. And as for British bashing, that would have (slightly) more clout if you hadn't made a bigoted unfounded statement about Americans above. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting date of the war

The infobox gives a starting date of March 18, but this date does not appear anywhere else in the article. Google Books has the cited source, but only in "snippet view", which tantalizingly shows, "The 'Opium War' can be said to have started on 18 March 1839, the day when", but it ends there. Can anyone please expand on this in the article? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

I added the globalize template because many sentences describing the events are qualified or justified with a Western POV, while the Chinese and international point of view is omitted. I decided not to add the neutrality template because it implies dispute, and I don't see any dispute going on. The article just needs some tweaks to present a more global, balanced, neutral point of view. A few examples, with bolding on problematic phrases:

• The British Superintendent of Trade in China, Charles Elliot, got the British traders to agree to hand over their opium stock with the promise of eventual compensation for their loss from the British government. (This promise, and the inability of the British government to pay it without causing a political storm, was an important cause for the subsequent British offensive).
• Because China did not have a jury trial system or evidentiary process (the magistrate was the prosecutor, judge, jury and would-be executioner), the British government and community in China wanted "extraterritoriality", which meant that British subjects would only be tried by British judges.

Badon (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the article needs to be completely rewritten. Currently it is written in the style of an historical action novel. It is unbalanced, not only because it focuses on Western POV, but because it focuses on actions rather than providing a coherent and concise timeline of decisions and authorisations. While Gladstone's comment that the war was unjust is cited there is no clarification of the British Government's role in promoting the war in the first place. LookingGlass (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PS re Tea, caffeine, addiction

Roberts views tobacco addiction as buoying opium addiction. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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 his view of why efforts to control it were, in his words, a farce. I'm asking for help incorporating an appropriate bit into this article. I'd also appreciate help on posting any or all of his journal to Wikisource. I've read the directions there, and they baffle me. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

PS re Kow Tow ? Roberts quotes a length from a memoir by the Reverend Robert Morrison "upon the subject of court ceremonies, observed from the lower to the higher dignitaries throughout the Chinese empire"—

"Waiving the question, whether it be proper for one human being to use such strong expressions of submission to another or not; when any, even the strongest of these forms are reciprocal, they do not destroy the idea of equality, or of mutual independence; if they are not reciprocally performed, the last of the forms expresses in the strongest manner, the submission and homage of one person or state to another; and, in this light, the Tartar family, now on the throne of China, consider the ceremony called San-kwei-kew-kow, thrice kneeling, and nine times beating the head against the ground. Those nations of Europe who consider themselves tributary and yielding homage to China, should perform the Tartar ceremony; those who do not so consider themselves, should not perform it. The English ambassador, Macartney, appears to have understood correctly the meaning of the ceremony, and proposed the only alternative which could enable him to perform it; viz., a Chinese of equal rank performing it to the king of England's picture.

"Perhaps a promise from the Chinese courts that should an ambassador ever go from thence to England, he would perform it in the king's presence, might have enabled him to do it. These remarks will probably convince the reader that the English government acts as every civilized government ought to act, when she endeavours to cultivate a good understanding, and liberal intercourse with China, while, using those endeavours, she never contemplates yielding homage, and wisely refuses to perform by her ambassador, that ceremony which is the expression of homage.

--Pawyilee (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First or Second Opium War...

End of third paragraph, first section: "The war is now considered in China as the beginning of modern Chinese history." Which war? The First Opium War, or the second? Sorry if I'm missing something. My first post in Wiki Talk. 24.152.141.57 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)EdwoodCA

Commodore or comprador?

"the Chinese coast guard in Kowloon arrested the commodore of the Carnatic," says the first sentence of the Kowloon Incident heading. This seems dubious, as my ebook copy of The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another says it was in fact the comprador that was arrested. I didn't know what either of those terms meant but from what I understand after looking them up: a commodore is a high-ranking navy officer, a comprador is a (Chinese) middleman facilitating trade between foreigners and Chinese merchants. (My book goes on to say that "their captain hesitated to inflame an already incendiary situation" so they seem to still have had their commodore. So, I suggest that be fixed, unless I've completely misunderstood something here. Thank you. 85.224.152.29 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Source says comprador so I've changed it. Spellcast (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename or Move discussion

Under the #Merge discussion topic above, it was suggested by Philg88 (talk · contribs) and concurred by ch that there should be a change to make the Arrow War be used for the main name for Second Opium War. This does beg the question of whether there should be a change to make Opium War the main name for the First Opium War. I too have always known the other war as the "Arrow War" and not the "Second Opium War", and was inclined to favor the change, though only rather passively, because, not having looked into the situation, I thought perhaps this might have been a generational gap and maybe newer history texts have adopted the new lingo. But I came across the following passage, and am now inclined to think the First/Second Opium War is the lingo being promoted by PRC (mainland China) based historians:

Jack Beeching seems to be among the few British authors who use the term 'opium wars' to describe both the Opium War and the Arrow War. He does not explain why; presumably he has followed the Chinese habit of doing so. In fact, that habit dates only from 1949 and occurs in mainland China only. Before that date, just the first conflict was called the Opium War; the second was called Ying-Fa Lianjun (Anglo-French Allied Forces), a term which continues in use in Taiwan today. Mainland Chinese historians have never explicitly addressed the reasons for changing the name to the Second Opium War. In private, one of them has told me that the rationale lies in Marx's view that the second war was a continuation of the first. Since the first has been called the 'Opium War', then to be logical the next has to be called the 'Second Opium War'. Thus, the word of Marx has become the authority for interpreting the Arrow War as an opium war.

—Wong, J. Y. (2002). Deadly Dreams: Opium and the Arrow War (1856-1860) in China. Cambridge University Press. p. 37. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) ISBN 0-52-152619-1 13-ISBN 978-0-521-52619-7

--Above unsigned comment was added 03:45, 18 April 2013 by Kiyoweap (talk · contribs)

You make a very good point (shame that you forgot to sign the post!), if we use Arrow War for the second article then the "First" in First Opium War becomes redundant on account of there being no "Second", which gels with the above quote. So should it then just be "Opium War" ? ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a very good point, absent discussion of whether First Opium War or The Opium War is the COMMON ENGLISH name of the subject. That said, yes, "Opium War" is the common name of the first conflict. Problem is, he's misinformed or unaware in thinking that Arrow War remains the common name of the second conflict. It isn't; the momentum is against his proposal; and his move of the Second Opium War article so far has and should continue to fail. — LlywelynII 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)