Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

China Triumph and Turmoil? **** off

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Treaty of Nanking (or Nanjing) was signed on 29 August 1842 to mark the end of the First Opium War (1839–42) between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Qing Dynasty of China. It was the first of what the Chinese called the unequal treaties because Britain had no obligations in return.

    In the wake of China's military defeat, with British warships poised to attack the city, representatives from the British and Qing Empires negotiated aboard HMS Cornwallis anchored at Nanking. On 29 August 1842, British representative Sir Henry Pottinger and Qing representatives, Qiying, Yilibu, and Niujian, signed the treaty. It consisted of thirteen articles and ratification by Queen Victoria and the Daoguang Emperor was exchanged nine months later.

    The fundamental purpose of the treaty was to change the framework of foreign trade which had been in force since 1760 (Canton System). The treaty abolished the monopoly of the Thirteen Factories on foreign trade (Article V) in Canton and instead five ports were opened for trade, Canton (Shameen Island until 1943), Amoy (Xiamen until 1930), Foochowfoo (Fuzhou), Ningpo (Ningbo) and Shanghai (until 1943), where Britons were to be allowed to trade with anyone they wished. Britain also gained the right to send consuls to the treaty ports, which were given the right to communicate directly with local Chinese officials (Article II). The treaty stipulated that trade in the treaty ports should be subject to fixed tariffs, which were to be agreed upon between the British and the Qing governments (Article X).

    The Qing government was obliged to pay the British government six million silver dollars for the opium that had been confiscated by Lin Zexu in 1839 (Article IV), 3 million dollars in compensation for debts that the Hong merchants in Canton owed British merchants (Article V), and a further 12 million dollars in war reparations for the cost of the war (VI). The total sum of 21 million dollars was to be paid in installments over three years and the Qing government would be charged an annual interest rate of 5 percent for the money that was not paid in a timely manner (Article VII).

    The Qing government undertook to release all British prisoners of war (Article VIII) and to give a general amnesty to all Chinese subjects who had cooperated with the British during the war (Article IX).

    The British on their part, undertook to withdraw all of their troops from Nanking and the Grand Canal after the emperor had given his assent to the treaty and the first instalment of money had been received (Article XII).

    British troops would remain in Gulangyu and Zhoushan until the Qing government had paid reparations in full (Article XII).

    In 1841, a rough outline for a treaty was sent for the guidance of Plenipotentiary Charles Elliot. It had a blank after the words "the cession of the islands of _____". Pottinger sent this old draft treaty on shore, with the letter s struck out of islands and the words Hong Kong placed after it.

    Robert Montgomery Martin, treasurer of Hong Kong, wrote in an official report:
    The terms of peace having been read, Elepoo the senior commissioner paused, expecting something more, and at length said "is that all?" Mr. Morrison enquired of Lieutenant-colonel Malcolm if there was anything else, and being answered in the negative, Elepoo immediately and with great tact closed the negotiation by saying, "all shall be granted—it is settled—it is finished."

    The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity" to provide British traders with a harbour where they could unload their goods (Article III). Pottinger was later appointed the first governor of Hong Kong.

    In 1860, the colony was extended with the Kowloon peninsula and in 1898, the Second Convention of Peking further expanded the colony with the 99 year lease of the New Territories. In 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China (PRC) concluded the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, under which the sovereignty of the leased territories, together with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) ceded under the Convention of Peking (1860), was scheduled to transfer to the PRC on 1 July 1997.

    Since the Treaty of Nanking was brief and with only general stipulations, the British and Chinese representatives agreed that a supplementary treaty be concluded in order to work out more detailed regulations for relations. On 3 October 1843, the supplementary Treaty of the Bogue was concluded at Bocca Tigris outside Canton.

    Nevertheless, the treaties of 1842–43 left several unsettled issues. In particular it did not resolve the status of the opium trade. Although the American treaty of 1844 explicitly banned Americans from selling opium, the trade continued as both the British and American merchants were only subject to the legal control of their consuls. The opium trade was later legalised in the Treaties of Tianjin, which China concluded after the Second Opium War.

    The Nanking Treaty ended the old Canton System and created a new framework for China's foreign relations and overseas trade which would last for almost a hundred years. Most injurious were the fixed tariff, extraterritoriality, and the most favoured nation provisions. These were conceded partly out of expediency and partly because the Qing officials did not yet know of international law or understand the long term consequences. The tariff fixed at 5% was higher than the existing tariff, the concept of extraterritoriality seemed to put the burden on foreigners to police themselves, and most favoured nation treatment seemed to set the foreigners one against the others. Although China regained tariff autonomy in the 1920s, extraterritoriality was not formally abolished until 1943.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pitt1988)
    Cold war remnants, can't big up a Communist economy / nation. People will realise it works and down comes capitalism.

    China is a communist economy now? Mao was a good guy?

    The worlds gone mad
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Troops of the eight countries invaded and occupied Beijing on August 14, 1900. Empress Dowager Cixi, the Emperor, and higher officials fled the Imperial Palace for Xi'an, and sent Li Hongzhang for peace talks.

    In a research article, Kenneth Clark states: "Following the taking of Peking, troops from the international force, looted the capital city and even ransacked the Forbidden City, with many Chinese treasures finding their way back to Europe."

    An unknown number of people believed to be Boxers were beheaded both during and after the uprising. This became the subject of an early short film.

    A U.S. Marine wrote that he saw German and Russian troops bayonet women after raping them.

    In Beijing, Bishop Pierre-Marie-Alphonse Favier posted a bulletin: in the first 8 days after August 18, Catholic Christians may steal life necessities, and declared that robbing within 50 taels of silver need neither reporting nor compensation.

    On December 14, 1900, a French newspaper quoted a soldier's statement: "We are open to the Church from the North palace, the priests go with us, ... they encourage us murder, robbery, robbing ... we are doing for the priests. We were ordered to do whatever we want in the city for three days, kill if want to kill, take if want to take, and the actual looting of the eight days."

    Atrocities were also carried out by the Boxers themselves. A large number of Christians were killed before the rebellion. A group of Orthodox Christian killed are still commemorated as the Holy Martyrs of China.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Most critical criticism of China from documentaries, newscast etc just seems to come from pure spite and jealousy. Just another old-fashioned Brit whining about X Asian country doesn't have the same values of western europe and that they don't have democracy blah blah blah.

    Yeah, democracy has gotten our country real far with economic turmoil (an actual real turmoil!), riots etc. When London riots happened the government and forces were in hesitation of whenever to use water hoses or plastic bullets rofl. When riots happen in China martial law is acted instantly with the army to handle it (they aren't busy ****ing off in the middle-east telling other countries what their political agenda should be). If the world took a page out of China book I truly believe the world would be a better place.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Has anyone else been following Niall Ferguson's three part series on China? I've just finished watching it and as a British Chinese I feel incredibly angry and insulted at his completely biased account of China. What does everyone else think about it? Summary at the End

    Firstly the entire tone of the programs has been sinister. He seeks to portray China as an "Evil Empire" that constantly seeks to impose itself on other nations. He has absolutely nothing positive to say about China or its people. He travelled around the country being sarcastic, arrogant, and condescending to everyone he met, twisting their words to support his ridiculous arguments. One example of his **** was lasts weeks program when he was talking about China's addiction to neon lights, and he shot immdiadely from scenes of Shanghi, to the government building in Beijing hundreds of miles away. He then goes on to say "This is the only building without neon lights" or somthing similar. What an absolute dick. Who does he think he's fooling? Thats like comparing Blackpool pleasure beach to Westminster!

    He equates today's Chinese government with that of the first emperor over 2000 years ago, really? China at that time was a divided country run by warlords, maybe his turmoil BS would stand up then but not now. He presents China as a country riddled with political protests and suppression of human rights. Of course these problems exist, but not on the same scale as he makes out. A lot of people in China have been lifted from absolute poverty, but it's not perfect, no country is. And as for human rights, I don't think I need to list the human rights abuses going on in a country like the USA. He says things like "China has no desire for western style democracy", well why on earth should they? It doesn't even work here so how would it work in a country with a completely different strucure, people, and tradition. British democracy has taken centuries to develop, and it is far from perfect. I think modern China isn't doing too badly for 70 odd years of existance.They instead should seek to is impliment democratic reforms, this is precisely what the Chinese government is doing. Such as reforms to the death penalty ect.

    His depiction of Mao was one of the most disgusting. He constantly refers to him as a tyrant and a mass murderer, likening him to Hitler and Stalin. Mao made huge mistakes that had grave consequences, but his achievments far outweigh the negatives. And Ferguson implies that Mao actively set out, on his own, to murder his own people. So if that's true, why does everyone in China love him? Some of Hitler's policies actually benefited poor Germans, but he isn't celebrated for it is he? And there is no mention of any of the things Mao's wife or the Gang of Four did. It's all Mao's fault! The reason virtually all Chinese love Mao is because everything we see in China now, was made possible by him.


    His overiding point was that the Chinese civilization is on the brink of collapse or "turmoil", and that they are constantly trying to avoid it. Well he's wrong, but what country wouldn't resist that anyway? Oh but because the "communist state" did it it's a problem! He criticises China's communism, its capitalism, and its nationalism. I sense that Ferguson is aching for turmoil in China, he wants China to collapse. But for what reason, I don't know, and don't really care either! China isn't going anywhere but up, but please people don't fear them! All the trade that China is doing across the world is above board and mutually beneficial. I think we all should be far more fearful of America's presence in the world.

    Please don't let this man's poison fool you. Please feel free to criticise China if you want, but at least do it objectively, taking into consideration all points of view.

    Thank you for reading if you did!


    SUMMARY: Niall Ferguson is a right wing Neo-colonial dickhead who hates Chinese Civilization and wants to influence us to think like him. Don't listen to him.
    You know, you almost sound like one of those patriotic Chinese youth that he talks about in the documentary. Ironic that you've proven him right from your rant. But seriously, I think you're letting your own bias and paranoia affect your own views. I mean, give me an example of where he was sarcastic, arrogant or condescending to the Chinese people? I bet you can't find solid proof of that because I didn't get a sense of what you said about him.

    On the whole, there wasn't much he said thats controversial or wrong even. The only contentious bit I found was him suggesting that China could go the way of Germany in WW1, but fair enough thats his point of view and I respect that, because you've got to learn that this what historians do - they set out to answer something or give an opinion to a topic that is unanswerable at present, they don't always have to be totally balanced, if they feel something can't be balanced then they won't do it. For example, if you were to write an essay about Hitler's legacy, naturally you would lean towards the view that overall he was a bad guy. You should learn that its okay for there to be programmes espicially history documentaries that you disagree with. I guess the problem comes when people mindlessly believes everything they're shown on TV without hesistation, hopefully better education should iron that out.

    However, even though I found the comparison with Germany to be slightly far-fetched, I can still see where he's coming from, fact is, there is alot to be learnt from history and he's right in that there have plenty of cases in the past where governments have turned to patrotism/finding a scrape-goat when their country is faced with a mass of discontent. Couple that with the very real possibility of increasing internal problems for China (after all, its not easy to sustain 7-8% economic growth each year as well as existing problems of corruption), and I think you'll find that he presents a fair argument at the end.

    I didn't think it was too unreasonable for him to draw parallels with the current government and the emperor 2000 years ago. What he essentially said is that they share the same fear (of catastropic turmoil) and also the same sense of power. What is there to be disagreed with here? Of course there are no warlords nowadays, but you still can't escape from the fact that there are many parts in China that are very different in culture, dialects, income, etc. And with that comes great difficulty in having a centralised system of governance that satisfies everyone, so again theres nothing wrong with what he says here.

    As for what he apparently said about china about being an 'evil empire', I think he only mentioned China's external affairs in this last programme where he goes to Africa. Again, not much wrong here, he did point out of the pros and cons to China's interests there. I remember he even made the point that unlike the west which simply dumps aid on Africa, China actually invests in it, he's effectively saying that China is benefiting Africa more than the West have ever done in the last 60 odd years since decolonisation.

    Overall, just chillax dude, the documentary wasn't that bad, certainly not as sinister as you make it to be.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roadlesstravelled)
    he murdered 60 million chinese.
    where did you pluck this number from? o.O even the most generous estimates are massively dwarfed by this number and thats even when you include famine as a result of the chaos and natural disasters of the time
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is it just me who thinks China is much more fascist than it is communist? I mean they have the state controls, totalitarianism, rabid nationalism, and a superiority complex...

    Mao was a bastard. He actively and deliberate wiped out land owners. Then he engaged in implementing his own untested socialist policies on a massive scale multiple times resulting in millions of deaths. Furthermore if he had never existed, China would have been where it is now decades ago. Even Hitler did some good for his country, but only a mentalist would say he is worthy of the adhoration confered on Mao.

    I think Fergusson did a good job of presenting China for what it is, and how it operates, with a reaonably good historical context mixed in too. I am always surprised that even many Chinese British manage to be brainwashed by the Chinese state. I think really they are just quite excited by the idea that their country/race is set to dominate the planet for the next century at least. I know I would be.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Maybe if you used Google you'd learn about the turmoil. Oh wait, I forgot! You can't! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHWAHAHAHAWHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A resource based economy is the only way forward.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This series of programmes highlights the fact the Chinese are a soft target.

    I could hardly believe Channel 4 allowed Ferguson to say the C-word to describe his knowledge of the Chinese at the start of the first programme.

    It wasn't even bleeped.

    Imagine the outcry if he used the N-word or P-word to describe African / Caribbeans or Asians.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The dickhead supports the Iraq War, and believes Islam to be a "sinister force that will have grave consequences for Europe in the future".

    I think we have enough of a case against him.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallytired)

    I could hardly believe Channel 4 allowed Ferguson to say the C-word to describe his knowledge of the Chinese at the start of the first programme.

    It wasn't even bleeped.

    Imagine the outcry if he used the N-word or P-word to describe African / Caribbeans or Asians.
    Seriously? I must've missed it completely.

    Where abouts was this in the first episode? I'll check it out myself
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skay)
    That's the equivalent of saying Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust.
    No it's not because Hitler systematically preached hatred against and persecuted the Jews, which resulted in the Holocaust. Mao did not do this to his own people.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallytired)
    This series of programmes highlights the fact the Chinese are a soft target.

    I could hardly believe Channel 4 allowed Ferguson to say the C-word to describe his knowledge of the Chinese at the start of the first programme.

    It wasn't even bleeped.

    Imagine the outcry if he used the N-word or P-word to describe African / Caribbeans or Asians.
    tbh, chinky/paki isn't even censored on here whereas ****** is.

    It is a monumental state of double standards.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internet tough guy)
    You know, you almost sound like one of those patriotic Chinese youth that he talks about in the documentary. Ironic that you've proven him right from your rant. But seriously, I think you're letting your own bias and paranoia affect your own views. I mean, give me an example of where he was sarcastic, arrogant or condescending to the Chinese people? I bet you can't find solid proof of that because I didn't get a sense of what you said about him.

    On the whole, there wasn't much he said thats controversial or wrong even. The only contentious bit I found was him suggesting that China could go the way of Germany in WW1, but fair enough thats his point of view and I respect that, because you've got to learn that this what historians do - they set out to answer something or give an opinion to a topic that is unanswerable at present, they don't always have to be totally balanced, if they feel something can't be balanced then they won't do it. For example, if you were to write an essay about Hitler's legacy, naturally you would lean towards the view that overall he was a bad guy. You should learn that its okay for there to be programmes espicially history documentaries that you disagree with. I guess the problem comes when people mindlessly believes everything they're shown on TV without hesistation, hopefully better education should iron that out.

    However, even though I found the comparison with Germany to be slightly far-fetched, I can still see where he's coming from, fact is, there is alot to be learnt from history and he's right in that there have plenty of cases in the past where governments have turned to patrotism/finding a scrape-goat when their country is faced with a mass of discontent. Couple that with the very real possibility of increasing internal problems for China (after all, its not easy to sustain 7-8% economic growth each year as well as existing problems of corruption), and I think you'll find that he presents a fair argument at the end.

    I didn't think it was too unreasonable for him to draw parallels with the current government and the emperor 2000 years ago. What he essentially said is that they share the same fear (of catastropic turmoil) and also the same sense of power. What is there to be disagreed with here? Of course there are no warlords nowadays, but you still can't escape from the fact that there are many parts in China that are very different in culture, dialects, income, etc. And with that comes great difficulty in having a centralised system of governance that satisfies everyone, so again theres nothing wrong with what he says here.

    As for what he apparently said about china about being an 'evil empire', I think he only mentioned China's external affairs in this last programme where he goes to Africa. Again, not much wrong here, he did point out of the pros and cons to China's interests there. I remember he even made the point that unlike the west which simply dumps aid on Africa, China actually invests in it, he's effectively saying that China is benefiting Africa more than the West have ever done in the last 60 odd years since decolonisation.

    Overall, just chillax dude, the documentary wasn't that bad, certainly not as sinister as you make it to be.
    What have I proven him right about? I'm British aren't I? I personally think that Ferguson is the paronoid one, could you not tell that the entire series was scaremongering? China according to him will either take over the world, or collapse, both having a catastrophic affect on us. And an example of his sarcasm was when he talked to a man about a photo where he was standing with Mao, we all know what he thinks of Mao by now, and he says things like "What a lovely photograph". If he despises Mao, why on earth does say things like this? If he doesn't want to offend the man then he shouldn't express him opinion to him! I understand of course If you don't see things in the same way as I do, but like you said other less educated people will swallow what he says about China and take it as fact. Theres already a huge amount of anti-China coverage in the media. And at no point did I say he shouldn't make the programme, I'm just saying I don't agree with him, or like him!

    As for being a historian, he doesn't seem to take into consideration enough evidence in his argument. I don't believe there was much mention of the impact that European colonialism had on China, and its people. These events still have an impact on China's psyche today.

    And btw the Chinese government has representatives from all regions of China, but I've heard that they aren't very effective anyway! And that's why Mandarin was cultivated as the standard language, to help unify the country, a similar thing happened in Italy I believe.

    And what an earth would turning to patriotism achieve for the government? All it is, is an admiration of China as a country. It can't be utilized in anyway apart from creating a massive army, but that's not what China does. It stays out of foreign military affairs like Libya and Iraq.

    We all by reading Ferguson's books and watching his shows can learn somthing. He is a very intelligent man, but unfortunately he presents his own personal opinion of China side by side with factual evidence as if they were equivalent.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Is it just me who thinks China is much more fascist than it is communist? I mean they have the state controls, totalitarianism, rabid nationalism, and a superiority complex...

    Mao was a bastard. He actively and deliberate wiped out land owners. Then he engaged in implementing his own untested socialist policies on a massive scale multiple times resulting in millions of deaths. Furthermore if he had never existed, China would have been where it is now decades ago. Even Hitler did some good for his country, but only a mentalist would say he is worthy of the adhoration confered on Mao.

    I think Fergusson did a good job of presenting China for what it is, and how it operates, with a reaonably good historical context mixed in too. I am always surprised that even many Chinese British manage to be brainwashed by the Chinese state. I think really they are just quite excited by the idea that their country/race is set to dominate the planet for the next century at least. I know I would be.
    Are you mad? Of course his policies were untested, he had nothing to base it on! And China would not have been where it is now if it wasn't for him. If the Nationalists had won then China would still be under the thumb of the British/Japanese and whoever else.

    And you know the Europeans actually created much of what we know as Chinese nationalism. The Treaty of Versailles actually took a piece of China that was held by Germany, and gave it to Imperial Japan, instead of returning it to the Chinese. Bear in mind the Chinese Labour Corps actually entered WW1 on the agreement that they would get this land back.

    And yes I am proud of China, I am proud that it can finally stand on it's two feet once again and be free of foreign opression. I don't see anything wrong with being proud of a country that "dominates" the world through it's own hard work and efforts, instead of pursuing a racist, elitist, and colonialist conquest.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    China is a communist economy now? Mao was a good guy?

    The worlds gone mad
    What's your opinion of China's standing now in comparison to where it was 150 years ago? Do you have one?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    What's your opinion of China's standing now in comparison to where it was 150 years ago? Do you have one?


    yeh ive got a big one thanks. whats that got to do with anything
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Two words: Tiananmen Square.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Are you mad? Of course his policies were untested, he had nothing to base it on! And China would not have been where it is now if it wasn't for him. If the Nationalists had won then China would still be under the thumb of the British/Japanese and whoever else.

    And you know the Europeans actually created much of what we know as Chinese nationalism. The Treaty of Versailles actually took a piece of China that was held by Germany, and gave it to Imperial Japan, instead of returning it to the Chinese. Bear in mind the Chinese Labour Corps actually entered WW1 on the agreement that they would get this land back.

    And yes I am proud of China, I am proud that it can finally stand on it's two feet once again and be free of foreign opression. I don't see anything wrong with being proud of a country that "dominates" the world through it's own hard work and efforts, instead of pursuing a racist, elitist, and colonialist conquest.
    I'm not mad but I think Mao was. Based on ideology he tore apart a system that was working, in favour of one that killed millions. He could have tested it on a small scale instead of being arrogant enough to roll it out across the entire country as he did.

    If nationalists had won they'd still be under the thumb of nationalists? Yeah a bit like India? lol... The best place to live in China, where the most wealth is, is Hong Kong. Somewhere we ruled til the 90s, that still has a relatively large amount of autonomy from the Chinese state.

    As for China being free from imperialism don't make me laugh. Ever heard of Tibet? The Chinese are also quite possible the most racist and elitist race on the planet today... It's just a good job there aren't a lot of Jews in China for them to destroy. Have you seen how Chinese people react when say a black and a chinese person mix?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 3, 2012
New on TSR

'Stalking pages' have changed!

Find other uni applicants with University Connect

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.