The Opium Wars of 1839-42, and 1858-1860 and the consequences play into present day narrative but as your posts show we should not forget what came before, and the different ways of East-West interactions, and the richness of possibilities there was. History is also being reminded that things don’t have to be the way they are now, things can be different, things once were different. Here’s a round-up of two weeks of posts. You will also find comments from me on your posts in the Hypothes.is comments.
Jacques and Nate highlighted the paradox of the Qing rulers that they tolerated art, but not so much free movement of people and goods. Chloe pointed out that there also was influence on European thinkers, but also check out Patrick’s post, where you are briefly reminded that Europe’s views of China changed dramatically over the course of the 18th century. Jialin makes the astute point that the Jesuits maybe set themselves up for failure by cosying up to Confucianism, which is characterized by agnosticism if not outright skepticism towards religious attitudes. However, it’s useful to bear in mind that in Chinese tradition it was perfectly possible to be “Confucian” for certain rituals, and practice Buddhist or popular religious rituals at other times; the traditions were not as exclusive as Western religions (i.e. you can’t be Muslim and Christian at the same time)
The Qing empire did not have an easy ride: Jennessa explains in two posts the significance of agriculture and the population changes, and Daniel explores the issue of corruption. That last point also explains a lot about what went wrong with the Macartney mission, since the corrupt courtier Heshen was in charge – see Ethan’s post for the consequences of incapable people in charge of important things. And while you’re there, also check out Sarah’s comment (in Hypothes.is group HST271) about the term “nation” (which really is difficult to apply for pre-1911 Qing China), and who suggests we might want to think about “commonwealth” instead. Or Empire… as in Qing Empire.
That is actually important to bear in mind: the issue of what it means to be multicultural/multiethnic is significant, and Aryeh’s post about the Qing tolerance to Muslims opens up that debate, but also have a look at the questions Nya raises about the term multicultural. I suggest we don’t just apply our modern definition, but also think about it from the Qing ruler’s point of view: they were Manchu, who ruled over a territory that did not only include ethnic Han people, but also Mongols, Tibetans, and whoever else they had conquered (in particular in Central Asia).
In part that helps to explain why in the 19th century the central government was having a much harder time keeping things together: in addition to foreign threats, ethnic Han people were also disappointed by the rule/protection of the Manchu (“what protection?” I hear you say?), and wanted to get rid of them. (This will become even more apparent by week 6). Anti-manchu sentiments occupied the Taiping “rebels” (although they’re only termed rebels because they lost; perhaps it’s better to talk about a Civil War, as Tobie Meyer-Fong suggests in the introduction to her book). Daje provides a good overview of the key takeaways of the reading, Chloe reminds us that ordinary humans were swept up in this awful conflict, while Ethan raises the question: can we call this war, if all we see is destruction and chaos? But what is war, if not the opposite of creation? (to paraphrase Joyce DiDonato?)
Similar questions can be raised for the Opium wars (both of them), which occupied most of your posts. Sid points out that China’s current international relations’ approach can be seen as compensation for the humiliation suffered in 1839-1860 (and by official Chinese historiography: 1949…). This is indeed the interpretation of that period by the current regime.
I’d like to urge caution before we fall for that reading of history: first, it turns the whole history into a very stark black-white contrast, and there are more than fifty shades of grey on both sides: Manchu who were smart and tried to modernize; Han who helped to smuggle opium; western missionaries who were moved by genuine compassion and humility; as well as hapless Chinese victims of western imperialism and horrible Western aggressors. Second, it also leaves the driving factor of Chinese history in the hands of the Westerners for a good century. That’s not the way history works: there were a lot of domestic things happening that happened independently of the westerners. Remember how Qing China was a very big state, and if you were to draw a map of china, and colour in the locations were foreigners were present, you’d notice that the vast majority of the territory was free from foreign presence or influence; and the people who engaged with western ideas were a very limited group.
Ok, off my soapbox, and back to the posts. Nate reminds us that this is the beginning of the story of Hong Kong, and keep your eyes peeled for more Hong Kong later this semester (towards the end). Jialin tries to make sense of the moral issues surrounding the opium trade, while Daniel suggests that Lin Zexu and in particular the Daoguang emperor’s decision are at the core of China’s woes. While the decisions were momentous, it may be useful to have a look at Matthew’s post to see how in an ideal situation the Qing government could have tried to solve the situation, by looking at various factors that might have made a difference.. Unfortunately the Qing was not in such a situation, and we all know how it ended…
And the sad thing is, this is not going to get better in the coming weeks. (Should this course come with a special warning in the course catalog??)
