Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

cyber.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#71

Post by uncletaco »

ammo1662 wrote: post #26
bshepard wrote: post #8

One thing to keep in mind is that the Ching government had already launched an opium war before the British began their narcopolitics. This is from P.E Caquet's "Opium's Orphans" “n the leafy town of Taiyu, Shanxi, an inland Chinese province southwest of Beijing, the district magistrate Chen Lihe had a stele put up for public display. The date was 1817 and, four years earlier, the emperor had issued a raft of regulat…

No, issuing regulation against drugs on their own territory is not a "war". But deploying Royal Navy to acquire foreign territory for trade is the "war".

I think he meant opium war in the same sense that Americans say war on drugs.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#73

Post by anonymousiam »

itbeho wrote: post #72

Makes one wonder about the flood of fentanyl coming in to the US from China.

It did not get much media coverage, but when Donald Trump was giving a speech in Las Vegas last week, he suggested that stricter laws for Fentanyl trafficking should be enacted, including capital punishment. Instead, Nevada (and many other states) have reduced penalties and now will not even arrest somebody with less than 28 grams (14k times the lethal dose).

China solved their drug problem. Ours is spinning out of control.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#74

Post by fallingfrog »

uncletaco wrote: post #71
ammo1662 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, issuing regulation against drugs on their own territory is not a "war". But deploying Royal Navy to acquire foreign territory for trade is the "war".

I think he meant opium war in the same sense that Americans say war on drugs.

I think you're right, but it's a perfect illustration of why we should definitely not be using "war" as a word for every task we undertake. Calling it a "war on drugs" is bad because it implies that we are attacking someone or something rather than looking at it as healing a nation from the harm caused by drugs, which even though it's just a difference of phrasing, lends itself to a more empathetic approach. Framing matters. Language matters. Nowadays every act of vandalism is "terrorism" and everything we do is a "war". But as you can never eliminate drugs or terror or vandalism or poverty completely, it's a war that can never be won, so it's dishonest both in terms of scope and in terms of how it frames possible action.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#75

Post by rnvannatta »

99_00 wrote: post #65
rnvannatta wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, England had a massive trade deficit, and failed to find anything the Chinese wanted to buy, except opium. In the end, this was approved by the queen to balance their trade deficit, as they were bleeding silver.

How is it possible that the England had nothing China wanted to buy when England was so technologically superior that they were able to defeat China's military, fighting in China, on the other side of the planet, outnumbered 10 to 1?

The same smugness and sense of superiority that China held for England, was also held by England for China. As such, the English only primarily tried to sell knickknacks and things the Chinese could produce better. This ended up backfiring and cementing the view to the Chinese that the English were simple barbarians.

They did indeed have weapons the Chinese (and other nations) wanted, but only sold a limited amount of them, to avoid arming the other nations too well, in case they ever wanted to go conquering.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#76

Post by inkyoto »

darkerside wrote: post #62
inkyoto wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did that letter suggest the British were seen as equals? No. Chinese emperors saw every other state outside the Celestial Empire as a tributary state and expected a full submission to the Chinese emperor, hence the language. > The phrase "barbarian" is used 16 times in the text «Barbarian» (蠻夷) was a term to refer to anyone else other than a direct subject of the Chinese Empire. Only the Chinese people were conside…

It's a little funny because a word like barbarian carries so many connotations to us today, which is so different from even what Westerners back then would have known. And the connotations of the Chinese word might never have shared any of them.

Chinese characters do not always have a clearly defined, unambiguous, meaning when gazed upon on their own in isolation. But they do acquire a specific meaning when used in a specific context. Typically, when complemented with other characters (it varies across Chinese languages, e.g. Chinese words tend to be shorter in spoken Cantonese as opposed to spoken Mandarin due to the historical loss of multiple finals in the latter as the former has retained many original sounds from Middle Chinese, hence also the historical divide). The context is very important in the Chinese languages.

For example, 夷 (the main character compounding the word 蠻夷, a «barbarian») – on its own – means «wild» or «ferral»; it can also be used to refer to a massacre (夷族 or 夷戮), but it can also be used to mean «calm», as in 夷然 (a fringe written word).

Most translations to European languages have historically used approximations due to the lack of the comprehension of a culture unfamiliar to Europeans. Therefore, the Greek word for «barbaric» / «barbarian» has been used as the closest appoximation of the meaning of 夷, but not it does not equate to its true semantic meaning for a native speaker.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#77

Post by zozbot234 »

ammo1662 wrote: post #26
bshepard wrote: post #8

One thing to keep in mind is that the Ching government had already launched an opium war before the British began their narcopolitics. This is from P.E Caquet's "Opium's Orphans" “n the leafy town of Taiyu, Shanxi, an inland Chinese province southwest of Beijing, the district magistrate Chen Lihe had a stele put up for public display. The date was 1817 and, four years earlier, the emperor had issued a raft of regulat…

No, issuing regulation against drugs on their own territory is not a "war". But deploying Royal Navy to acquire foreign territory for trade is the "war".

> No, issuing regulation against drugs on their own territory is not a "war".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#78

Post by Hayvok »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #70
Hayvok wrote: post #6

And queue the first Opium War. The Chinese did indeed start a crackdown on opium trade after this, including sending troops to seize warehouses full of it. This action sparked off the first Opium War with Britian, and kicking off the so-called Chinese “Century of Humiliation”.

>queue ...aeons ago, mixing up cue and queue would have been considered an eggcorn. [0] Nowadays, however, "queue" is perfectly cromulent to use in this idiom: the first Opium War has been added to the end of the playlist, and will soon commence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

Thanks for writing this (and teaching me what an eggcorn is) - it made me laugh.

However, I think I'll chalk my use of "queue" rather than "cue" to it being 1 AM when I wrote the comment. :)

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#79

Post by dash2 »

ginko wrote: post #49
dash2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think banning drugs is a bad idea, and that it's better to allow free trade. A good response to that would be, "yeah, but it was for the Chinese to make their minds up about that, not the British!" And a good response to that might be: "when you say the Chinese made their minds up, are you talking about a democratic process?"

>And a good response to that might be: "when you say the Chinese made their minds up, are you talking about a democratic process?" It was the early 19th century. You could count the number of democratic countries on one hand. (If you counted countries where only men could vote)

Right. But this renders moot the whole question of force and consent here. One undemocratic government did something to another undemocratic government. Or at least, if you think democracy is the sole source of legitimacy, that's what happens. I think there are other possible stories that could be told.

Re: Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria (1839)

#80

Post by dash2 »

skrebbel wrote: post #54
dash2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think banning drugs is a bad idea, and that it's better to allow free trade. A good response to that would be, "yeah, but it was for the Chinese to make their minds up about that, not the British!" And a good response to that might be: "when you say the Chinese made their minds up, are you talking about a democratic process?"

Neither side of this battle thought that allowing 100% unfettered trade in the terrorities they controlled was a good thing. This wasn't some ideological war by starry eyed libertarians.

19th century Britain is probably as close to "starry-eyed libertarianism" as has ever been seen before or since. They repealed the Corn Laws.
Post reply on HN