Tuesday, February 3, 2009
793-806: Imperialism and the Opium Trade
European imperialism allowed the technologically advanced European nations to exploit the less technologically advanced and therefore vulnerable colonized nations. This exploitation is demonstrated through European imperialism in India, in which British traders exploited the Indian workers and opium sources. The British East India Company managed the opium trade that was initiated due to Britain’s abundant opium-growing territory in northeast India. The British exploitation of India’s opium sources and the desperation of the Indians for work yielded an industry that expanded rapidly, and a European addiction to this drug established quickly. Soon an “Opium Trade Triangle” of sorts was created between India (who provided the opium) Europe (who traded the highly valued product) and China (whose goods were purchased by European traders). In this triangle, the European traders maintained the power and influence over China and India, who were subject to the will of the British. Imperialism gave Europeans access to new markets, such as the opium trade, thus expanding European influence territorially as well as economically.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/02/793-806-imperialism-and-opium-trade.html
ReplyDeleteGood summary. Do you have an argument that you would like to advance?
After colonizing an “inferior” nation, Europeans are able to exploit the local resources, which expands the European economy, further strengthening the European nation. Nationalism gave European nations the momentum to colonize other countries, for it was based in the innate desire to create a powerful nation, and European nations would do whatever it takes in order to establish a strong reputation
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/02/787-793.html
So, would you be saying that nationalism was one driving force to get into the imperialism business, since imperialism was seen as supporting national cohesion and aspirations? Then, with success, it helped inflate further the nationalist sense. A “virtuous” circle, or should that be “vicious” circle? If this is so, what do you think the outcome would be of this spiralling feedback loop?
The example of how Great Britain responded to public complaints after the Crimean War demonstrates how the presence of a common culture is conducive to national progression and betterment.
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary_31.html
An interesting argument—the British people have more confidence to speak their minds because they saw themselves as a united people. Could it also have something to do with the fact that British institutions allowed for a fair degree of press autonomy and public debate?
dampened the pride of the Russians and thus maintained the balance of power. ...
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/767-780.html
Did it maintain the balance of power as it was understood at the time. Austria had been expected top come to Russia's aid in the war—after all, she was an all. Her failure, helped isolate Austria later for Prussia to unite Germany.
While the nations were divided in both of these cases, the difference between cultural and geographical division is significant and produces considerably different outcomes.
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/762-767.html
Good insight and a worthwhile distinction. What do you think of Russia which had a huge landmass (1/6 of the world's lanmass at one point) and 104 “nationalities” and 146 languages?
The act of compromise demonstrates the humbleness of a government and it’s willingness to adhere to the complaints of the people in order to better the state of the country as a whole. ...
Consequently, if a government truly wants to avoid revolution (and not just stall the threat of a revolution), it only really has one option: to put aside its ego and mold itself to fit the needs of its people.
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary.html
While this question was publicized by John Stuart Mill, who defended women’s rights to freedom in his literature, it was overlooked or somewhat pushed to the side. While Great Britain had been so quick to mold to cease the complaints of the workers, women did not gain basic liberties until World War 1, which reveals a contradiction within liberalism and calls to question the true value of women with British society
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/754-762.html
Yet, didn't Britain go through the Peterloo Massacre, and the crackdown of the Six Acts? Would it be the case that Britain did bend some, but the dictates of public order were very important in all of this? Also, you could mention the ways in which Bismarck cemented the German nation—unemployment insurance, pensions, etc
Also, could it also be a question of the arguments raised in these issues? The Reform Act of 1867 will enfranchise some more men—but plenty of others—those making less than 10 pounds, are not getting the vote. So, the government is going to give women the vote before these male poor? Even if these women are rich? I agree that working will help—economic independence leads to political independence—that was the argument that Disraeli accepted with the Reform Act. But, many women don't have that economic independence at this time, relying on husbands or family... or helping the family with poorly paying jobs. After all males get suffrage, then, the argument can be joined in this patriarchal society...
The Romantic period provided an “explanation” of reality that was much more simple and understandable than the many interpretations of reality created during the Enlightenment, trying more to express reality than analyze it. During the Romantic period, reality was interpreted as nothing more than one’s experience and existence provided by nature
http://gracemeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-to-token-self-indulgent-post.html
And yet, I wonder—what of the supernatural elements-- are these really explanations of reality? Consider Frankenstein—how do you see it as an “expression of reality”? I get into the images of the one against the many, and the reliance on expressive emotion and feeling, but is this reality? Or an attempt to privilege one aspect of human experience—the emotional, at the expense of another, the rational?