The opium war drugs, dreams and the making of modern china

Tai Lieu Chat Luong





ToRob




Preface

On8November2010,theBritishprimeminister,DavidCameron,leda
substantialembassytoChina.Hewasaccompaniedbyfourofhismostsenior
ministers,andfiftyorsohigh-rankingexecutives,allhopingtosignmillionsof
pounds’worthofbusinessdealswithChina(forproductsrangingfromwhisky
tojets,frompigstosewage-stabilizationservices).Toanyonefamiliarwiththe
historyofSino-Britishrelations,theenterprisewouldhavebroughtbacksome
unhappymemories.Britain’sfirsttwotrade-hungrymissionstoChina(in1793
and1816)endedinconflictandfrustrationwhentheirambassadors–proud
Britons,both–declinedtoprostratethemselvesbeforetheQingemperor.These
failuresledindirectlytodecadesofintermittentwarsbetweenthetwocountries,
asBritainabandonednegotiationandresortedinsteadtogunboatdiplomacyto
openChinesemarketstoitsgoods–chiefamongwhichwasopium.
DespitehappysnapsofDavidCameronsmilingandwalkingalongtheGreat
Wallinthecompanyofschoolchildren,the2010visitwasnotwithoutits
difficulties.On9November,asCameronandcompanyarrivedtoattendtheir
officialwelcomingceremonyattheGreatHallofthePeopleatTiananmen
Square,aChineseofficialallegedlyaskedthemtoremovetheirRemembrance
Daypoppies,onthegroundsthattheflowersevokedpainfulmemoriesofthe

OpiumWarfoughtbetweenBritainandChinafrom1839to1842.
SomeoneinChina’sofficialwelcomingpartyhad,itseemed,putconsiderable
effortintofeelingoffendedonbehalfofhisorher1.3billioncountrymen(for
onething,RemembranceDaypoppiesareclearlymodelledonfield,notopium,
poppies).PartsoftheChineseInternet–which,sinceitcameintoexistence
somefifteenyearsago,hasbeenhometoanoversensitivenationalism–
respondedangrily.‘Asrulersofthegreatestempireinhumanhistory,’
rememberedonenetizen,‘theBritishwereinvolvedin,orsetoff,agreatmany
immoralwars,suchastheOpiumWarsthatweChinesearesofamiliarwith.’
‘WhosefaceistheEnglishprimeministerslapping,whenheinsistssoloftilyon
wearinghispoppy?’askedoneblogger.‘HowdidtheEnglishinvadeChina?


Withopium.HowdidtheEnglishbecomerichandstrong?Throughopium.’
InBritain,meanwhile,theincidentwasquicklyspuntothecreditofthe
country’sleadership:oursteadfastministers,itwasreported,hadrefusedtobow
totheChineserequest.‘Weinformedthemthepoppiesmeantagreatdealtous,’
saidamemberofthePrimeMinister’sparty,‘andwewouldbewearingthemall
thesame.’(Inrecentyears,RemembranceDayactivitieshavebecomeinfected
bypoliticalhumbug,asright-wingragslambastpublicfigurescaughtwithout
poppiesintheirlapels.InNovember2009,thethen-oppositionleader,David
Cameron,andthePrimeMinister,GordonBrown,usedthecommemorationto
engageinPRbrinkmanship,bothvyingtobephotographedlayingwreathsfor
thewardead.)IncertainquartersoftheBritishpress,theincidentwasreadasan
echoofthe1793and1816stand-offs,withpluckylittleBritainagainrefusingto
kowtowtotheimperiousdemandsoftheChinesegiant.
Behindallthis,however,reactionstotheincidentweremorenuanced.For
onething,beneaththestirringBritishheadlinesof‘DavidCameronrejects
Chinesecalltoremove“offensive”poppies’,itprovedhardtosubstantiatewho,
exactly,intheChinesegovernmenthadobjected.Beyondtheoccasional

expressionofoutrage,asintheexamplesabove,theChinesecyber-sphereand
pressdidnotactuallyseemparticularlybothered,withnetizensandjournalists
calmlydiscussingthesymbolicsignificanceofBritishpoppy-wearing,andeven
bemoaningthefactthatChinalackedsimilarcommemorationsofherwardead.
ThewiderpublicresponseinBritainalsoappearedrestrained.Readercomments
oncoverageoftheincidentinBritain’snormallyjingoisticDailyMailwere
capableofempathyandeventouchesofguilt.‘Justbecause[poppy-wearing]is
importantinBritaindoesn’tmeanitmeansthesametheworldover.I’msure
someofusinBritainarehighlyignorantoftheimportanceofChinesehistoryin
China–especially...theOpiumWar...nowondertheyareabitsensitive
aboutit’.
DavidCameron’spoppycontroversywasonlythemostrecentexampleofthe
antagonisms,misunderstandingsanddistortionsthattheOpiumWarhas
generatedoverthepasthundredandseventyyears.Sinceitwasfought,
politicians,soldiers,missionaries,writersanddrugsmugglersinsideandoutside
Chinahavebeenretellingandreinterpretingtheconflicttoservetheirown
purposes.InChina,ithasbeenpubliclydemonizedasthefirstemblematicactof
Westernaggression:asthebeginningofanationalstruggleagainstaforeign
conspiracytohumiliatethecountrywithdrugsandviolence.Innationslike
Britain,meanwhile,thewagingofthewartransformedprevailingperceptionsof
theMiddleKingdom:Chinabecame,inWesterneyes,anarrogant,fossilized
empirecastbeneficiallyintothemodernworldbygunboatdiplomacy.The
realityoftheconflict–atragicomedyofoverworkedemperors,mendacious


realityoftheconflict–atragicomedyofoverworkedemperors,mendacious
generalsandpragmaticcollaborators–wasfarmorechaoticallyinteresting.This
bookisthestoryoftheextraordinarywarthathasbeenhauntingSino-Western
relationsforalmosttwocenturies.

Contents

Maps
ANoteAboutChineseNamesandRomanization
Introduction
One:OpiumandChina
Two:Daoguang’sDecision
Three:CantonSpring
Four:OpiumandLime
Five:TheFirstShots
Six:‘AnExplanatoryDeclaration’
Seven:Sweet-TalkandSea-Slug
Eight:Qishan’sDownfall
Nine:TheSiegeofCanton
Ten:TheUnEnglishedEnglishman
Eleven:XiamenandZhoushan
Twelve:AWinterinSuzhou
Thirteen:TheFightforQingChina
Fourteen:TheTreatyofNanjing
Fifteen:PeaceandWar
Sixteen:TheYellowPeril
Seventeen:TheNationalDisease
Eighteen:CommunistConspiracies
Nineteen:Conclusion


PrincipalCharacters

Timeline
Notes
SelectedBibliography
Acknowledgements
Index




Maps

1.TheContemporaryPeople’sRepublicofChina
2.TheQingEmpire
3.OverviewofTheatresoftheOpiumWar,1839–42
4.CantonanditsSurroundings
5.TheEastCoastCampaigns(1841–42)


TheContemporaryPeople’sRepublicofChina


TheQingEmpire

OverviewofTheatresoftheOpiumWar,1839–42


CantonanditsSurroundings


TheEastCoastCampaigns(1841–42)

ANoteAboutChineseNamesandRomanizationIn
Chinesenames,thesurnameisgivenfirst,followedby
thegivenname.Therefore,inthecaseofLiangQichao,
LiangisthesurnameandQichaothegivenname.
Ihaveusedthepinyinsystemofromanizationthroughout,exceptforafew
spellingsbestknownoutsideChinainanotherform,suchasChiangKai-shek
(JiangJieshiinpinyin).Inaddition,Ihaveoccasionallyusedtheold,nineteenthcenturyanglophonespellingsofsomeChineseplacenames(forexample
Canton,forthecityknowninMandarinChineseasGuangzhou)toreduce
confusionresultingfrommorethanonenamebeingcitedinthemaintextandin
quotationsfromprimarysources,andalsobecauseanglophonehistoriansstill
callthepre-1839rulesgoverningEuropeantradewithChina‘theCanton
system’.
Inpinyin,transliteratedChineseispronouncedasinEnglish,apartfromthe
followingsounds:VOWELS
a(whentheonlyletterfollowingaconsonant):aasinahai:eye
ao:owasinhowe:uh
ei:ayasinsayen:enasinhappeneng:ungasinsungi(astheonlyletter
followingmostconsonants):easinmei(whenfollowingc,ch,s,sh,z,zh):er
asindriveria:yah
ian:yen
ie:yeah
iu:yoasinyo-yoo:oasinstorkong:oong
ou:oasinsou(whenfollowingmostconsonants):ooasinlootu(when
followingj,q,x,y):üastheGermanüua:wah
uai:why
uan:wu-an

uang:wu-ang
ui:way


uo:u-woah
yan:yen
yi:eeasinfeed
CONSONANTS
c:tsasinbitsg:gasingoodq:chasinchoosex:aslightlymoresibilant
versionofshasinsheepz:dsasinwoodszh:jasinjob




Introduction

In1832,alordoftheKing’sbedchamberbythenameofWilliamNapierlosthis
seatasaScottishpeerandstartedlookingforgainfulemployment.Withina
year,somethinghadcomeup:SuperintendentofBritishtradeinChina–anew
governmentposition(atanattractive,ambassadorial-level£6,000perannum)to
replacetheoldSelectCommitteeoftheEastIndiaCompany,whosemonopoly
overtheChinatradehadjustbeenabolished.ThoughNapierimmediatelymade
aplayforthepost,thePrimeMinister,LordGrey,stalledhimonthegrounds
thatheneededCabinetapproval.Foronpaper,Napierwasnotthestrongestof
applicants.Hewasamanofmanytalents:navigation;sheep-farming(onwhich
subjecthewasapublishedauthority);bagpipe-mending;playingtheflute.
Unpickingdelicatediplomaticwrangleswithoneofthelargestandmost
intricatelyculturedempiresintheworldwasnot,however,partofhisskill-set.
YetGreywasnotoverwhelmedbymoresuitablecandidates.Theposthad
alreadybeenturneddownbyacolonialstalwartandfutureGovernorofIndia,

LordAuckland,whohadnamedCanton–thesoutherncityinGuandong
provincetowhichEuropeantradershadbeenrestrictedsince1760–‘perhaps
theleastpleasantresidenceforaEuropeanonthefaceoftheearth’.1Britain’s
relationshipwithChina’scurrentoverlords,theManchuQingdynasty,should
havebeenstraightforward.Britainwantedtea,andotherdesirablessuchassilk
andporcelain;theQingwerehappytosell.Thetradewasthoroughlyregulated.
Thedynasty’sfourthemperor,Qianlong,hadin1760limitedforeigncommerce
toamonopolisticCantonguildofmerchantsknowntoEuropeansasthe‘Hong’
(Cantoneseforcompany):purchasesandsales,transittaxes,complaints,customs
tariffs–everythingwastogofirstthroughtheHong,whomightpass
outstandingqueriesontothelocalofficialinchargeoftrade.Hemight,inturn,
forwardmattersontotheprovincialgovernor;andfromthere,eventually,they


mightmoveontotheemperorinBeijing.Ratherthanputthemselvestothe
troubleoffindinglodgingsandwarehousesinthecityofCantonitself,China’s
governmentruledthatEuropeantradersweretomakethemselvesathome
throughthetradingseason(roughlySeptembertoJanuary)inarowof‘factories’
leasedtothembytheHong.SituateddeliberatelyoutsideCanton’sthirty-foothighcitywalls,thefactoriesofferedmerchantsaroundfifteenacresoflivingand
warehousespace,overlookingthePearlRiverthatleduptothecityfromthesea.
Outsidethesemonths,theforeignersweretowithdrawtothePortuguese-leased
enclaveofMacao,aboutseventymilesaway,orreturnhome.TheEuropeans,in
sum,wereatalltimestobekeptatacareful,bureaucraticdistancefromthe
authoritiesandpopulace.
ButifrelationsbetweentheChinesegovernmentandforeignmerchantswere
wary,thetruesourceofbadfeelingwasnotbureaucracy–itwaseconomics.By
the1780s,Britainwasrunningupaserioustradedeficit:whileChina’s
governmentwasquitehappytoservicethegrowingBritishteaaddiction,it
seemedtowantlittleexceptsilverinreturn.AsEastIndiaCompanyprofits
failedtooffsetthecostsofruleinIndia,Britishtea-drinkerspushedAsiatrade

figuresfurtherintothered.From1780to1790,thecombinedreturnsofthe
IndiaandChinatradesfailedtomakeevena£2milliondentinthe£28million
debtleftoverfromtheconquestofIndia.2
Bythe1820s,theBritishthoughttheyhadfoundaperfectsolutiontotheir
difficulty:Indianopium,forwhichChineseconsumershadincreasingly
developedatasteovertheprecedingcoupleofdecades.Between1752and1800,
anet105millionsilverdollars(approximately£26.25million)flowedinto
China;between1808and1856,384milliontravelledintheoppositedirection,
thebalanceapparentlytippedbyboomingopiumimports.From1800to1818,
theaverageannualtrafficheldsteadyataround4,000chests(eachchest
containingaround140poundsofopium);by1831,itwasnearing20,000.After
1833,whentheFreeTradelobbyterminatedtheEastIndiaCompany’s
monopolyontheteatrade,themarketwasfloodedbyprivatemerchantshungry
forteaandprofits.Opium–inevergreaterquantities–wasthebarter.Bythe
closeofthedecade,saleshadmorethandoubledagain.3
ThegreaterpartoftheprofitsfellintothepocketsoftheBritishgovernment,
whoseagentsinAsiacontrolledopiumproductioninBengal.TheEastIndia
CompanydidnotpubliclydirtyitshandsbybringingthedrugtoChina.It
commissionedandmanagedplantationsofopiumpoppiesacrosshundredsof
thousandsofIndianacres.Ittookcareoftheprocessing(thepainstakinglancing
ofindividualpoppyseedpodsforrawopiumgum,settinganddryingthegumin
trays,pressingitintocakes,andcoatingtheseincrushed,driedpoppystemsand


trays,pressingitintocakes,andcoatingtheseincrushed,driedpoppystemsand
leaves).Finally,itoversawthepackingofthedrugintomango-woodchests,its
shippingtoCalcutta,andauctioningoff.Atthatmoment,theCompanywashed
itshandsofit,lettingprivatemerchantssailfortheChinesecoast,wherethey
anchoredofftheislandofLintin,atthemouthofthePearlRiver.EagerChinese
wholesalerswouldthenusesilvertobuycertificatesfromprivatetradingoffices

inCantonandexchangethemforopium;thissilverwouldinturnsecureteasand
silksfortheEnglishmarket.
Onthefaceofit,thearrangementwasastidyastheearliersilver–teatrade:
onesidehavingsomethingtosell,theotherhavingsomethingitwantedin
exchange.ButanxiousmembersoftheQinggovernmentwerenohappiertolose
silverthantheirBritishcounterpartshadbeenafewdecadesearlier,andwere
frettingaboutthecorruptingeffectsofaboomingdrugculture.Afterahandful
ofattemptedcrackdownsintheeighteenthcentury,theQingstate’swaron
opiumbeganinearnestinthe1830s,andwouldcontinue–intermittently,
inconsistently–overthenexthundredyears.Britain’sprivateopium-sellers
werealsodissatisfied.ForIndiacouldprovideasmuchopiumasChinawould
takeandtheyresentedthefactthattheQing’stradecontrolshadpushedthem
intotheblackeconomy.Theycravedamorerespectableimage,toestablish
commerceonafooting‘equallyadvantageousandhonourable’,andwanteda
lawfulwayintotheChinamarket,eitherthroughthelegalizationofopium,or
throughtheopeningofportstootherBritishgoods–andpreferablyboth,to
whichendtheybegan,throughthe1830s,impudentlyedgingthetradefurther
northupthecoast.4
Thesemerchantswereforthemostpartacrewofbuccaneeringmoneymakers,fullofmockeryfortheempireoutsidewhosewallstheywereheld(orat
anyratefortheunrepresentativesouthernfragmentthattheyglimpsedat
Canton).Theyobjectedtowhattheysawasitspompous,oftenvenal
bureaucracy;itsdeterminationtokeepthemandtheirtradeataprudentremove;
itsantiquity,itssmells,itsabsenceofChristianityanddecentwater-closets;the
offensiveChinesehabitofstaringatforeigners;thearrogantChinesefailureto
stareatforeigners;andsoon.TheChinese,assummarizedbyJamesMatheson,
aScottishpillarofthesmugglingcommunityandco-founderwithWilliam
JardineofthegreatopiumhouseJardine–Mathesons,were‘apeople
characterizedbyamarvellousdegreeofimbecility,avarice,conceitand
obstinacy...Ithasbeenthepolicyofthisextraordinarypeopletoshroud
themselvesandallbelongingtotheminmysteryimpenetrable...[to]exhibita

spiritofexclusivenessonagrandscale.’5
MathesonandhiscolleagueswerejoinedintheirimpatiencebytheProtestant


missionarycommunity.TheLondonMissionarySocietyhadsentouttheirfirst
mantosouthChina,RobertMorrison,in1807.Notlongafterhisarrival,hehad
beenaskedwhetherhehopedtohaveanyspiritualimpactonthecountry:‘No,’
heresponded,‘butIexpectGodwill’.6Thirtyyearslater,heandhiscolleagues
foundthemselvesunableeithertonameorenumeratemorethanahandfulof
converts.Ill,depressed,stalledontheedgeofthemainland,frustrated
missionaryobserversofthe1830sspokeapuredialectofimperialist
paternalism:‘Chinastillproclaimsherproudandunapproachablesupremacy
anddisdainfullyrejectsallpretensionsinanyothernationtobeconsideredas
herequal.ThisfeelingofcontemptiblevanityChristianityalonewilleffectually
destroy.Whereothermeanshavefailed,thegospelwilltriumph;thiswill
fraternizetheChinesewiththerestofmankind...[linking]theminsympathy
withotherportionsoftheirspecies,andthusaddtothetriumphsithas
achieved.’7Themissionariesbecamenaturalalliesofthesmugglers:whenthey
firstarrivedonthecoastofChina,theydockedamongopiumtradersonthe
islandofLintin;theyinterpretedfortheminexchangeforpassagesupthecoast,
distributingtractswhilethedrugwastakenonshore;andintheChinese
Repository,Canton’sleadingEnglish-languagepublication,theysharedaforum
forspreadingtheirviewsontheurgentneedtoopenChina,bywhatevermeans
necessary.Bythe1830s,merchantsandmissionariesalikefavouredviolence.
‘[W]henanopponentsupportshisargumentwithphysicalforce,[theChinese]
canbecrouching,gentle,andevenkind’,observedKarlGützlaff,astout
Pomeranianmissionarywhowould,duringtheOpiumWar,leadtheBritish
militaryoccupationofpartsofeasternChina,runningarmiesofChinesespies
andcollaborators.8Theslightestprovocationwoulddo.In1831,tradershad
writtentothegovernmentinIndia,demandingafleetofwarshipstoavengethe

Chineseauthorities’partialdemolitionofafrontgardenthattheBritishhad
illegallyrequisitioned.9
TheappointmentNapiersoughtwastooverseethisuntidy,thoughbroadly
profitablemodusvivendi.Hisbriefwastomaintainalegalteatradefinancedby
illegaldrugimports.Eventually,afteraskingthekingtointerveneonhisbehalf,
NapierwonBritain’sfirstofficialresidentpostingtoChina.Thenew
superintendenthadasimplesolutiontothedifficultiesbeforehim:blastthe
countryintosubmission.‘TheEmpireofChinaismyown’,heconfided
excitedlytohisdiary.‘Whatagloriousthingitwdbetohaveablockading
squadronontheCoastoftheCelestialEmpire...howeasilyagunbrigwdraise
arevolutionandcausethemtoopentheirportstothetradingworld.Ishouldlike
tobethemediumofsuchachange.’10


Greytookcaretoputhimrightinaprivateletterofinstructions:‘Nothing
mustbedonetoshock[Chinese]prejudices&excitetheirfears...Persuasion&
Con-ciliationshouldbethemeansemployed,ratherthananythingapproaching
tothetoneofhostile&menacinglanguage’.11Thewarningfellondeafears.In
thecourseofhissix-monthseavoyagetoChina,Napierdrewthefollowing
conclusions:first,thatthekeytoBritishinterestinChinawastea,andsecond,
that‘everyactofviolenceonourparthasbeenproductiveofinstantredressand
otherbeneficialresults’.12TheBritish‘mustuseforce,notmenaceit’,he
remindedhimself,somewherepastMadeira.13Therewillcomeatime,Napier
resolvedashisshipcrossedthetropicseas,whentheirfollywill‘bringdown
uponthemthechastisementofGreatBritain,wheneverypointmaybegained
withthegreatestease,andsecuredforalltimetocome’.14
BurntrawbythesouthChinasun,NapiersailedintoCantonat2a.m.on25
July1834;bydaybreak,theUnionflagwasflyinghighovertheoldEastIndia
Companyfactory.WithintwodayshehadsucceededinbreakingsixlongestablishedrulesofAnglo-Chinesetrade.Chiefamongtheseoffenceswerethat
hehadsailedintoCantonwithoutapassport,andwithoutapermittotakeup

residencethere,andthathetriedtocommunicateinwritingdirectlywith
officials–therebyassertinghisdiplomaticequality–ratherthanthroughthe
merchantsimperiallyappointedtodealwithforeigners.
Napier’sdisregardfortherulesdidnotendearhimtothegovernor-general
responsibleforCanton,LuKun,whobegantryingtoedgehimbackintoline,
instructinghimtoretreattoMacaoandnotreturnwithoutapermit.Irritatedby
allthisdiplomaticfuss(Napier’sdeterminationtohandaletterofselfintroductiondirectlytothegovernor-generalhadembroiledEnglishandChinese
underlingsinathree-hourstand-offatthecitygateunderthemiddaysun),the
Chineseadministrationalloweditselfalittlelinguisticmischief.Inpublicedicts,
Napier’snameappearedincharactersthat,theBritishtranslatorawkwardly
explained,seemedtomean‘laboriouslyvile’.Inreturn,Napiernamedthe
governor-general‘apresumptuoussavage’,mutinouslydistributedChineselanguagebroadsheetsenumeratingthelocalgovernment’ssins,andsworeto
punishtheinsulttotheBritishcrown:‘Threeorfourfrigatesandbrigs,’he
quicklywrotetohisforeignsecretary,LordPalmerston,‘withafewsteady
Britishtroops...wouldsettlethethinginaspaceoftimeinconceivablyshort.
SuchanundertakingwouldbeworthythegreatnessandthepowerofEngland..
.theexploitistobeperformedwithafacilityunknowneveninthecaptureofa
paltryWestIndiaIsland’.15
GivenhisirascibilitytowardstheChineseauthorities,Napierdevelopeda


surprisingtendernessfortheChinesepeoplethemselves.‘Inevermetwithmore
civility,’heremarkedsomethreeweeksintohisstay,‘orsolittleofadisposition
toactwithinsultorrudenessthanIconstantlyseeamongthesehardworkingand
industriouspeople.’16Hebecameconvincedthattheylookedtohimfor
liberationfromChina’soppressiveauthorities.‘[S]aytotheEmperor–adopt
thisorabidetheconsequences–anditisdone...Ianticipatenotthelossofa
singlesoul,andwehavejusticeonourside...TheChinesearemostanxiousto
tradewithus.’ProvideditwaskeptsufficientlyinformedoftheBritish
grievance,hereasoned,thepopulace‘mightlooktothearrivalofsuchaforceas

thehappymeansoftheiremancipationfromamostarbitrarysystemof
oppression...surelyitwouldbeanactofCharitytotakethemintoone’shands
altogether,andnodifficultjob.’17
By2September1834,Napier’sdefiancehaddrivenLuKuntostoptradeand
blockadetheBritishfactory.Withinanotherweek,ithadprovokedarmed
conflict.AfterdispatchingarequesttoLordGreyforaBritishforcefromIndia,
Napiercalledthetwofrigatesunderhiscommand(stationedalongthecoast)up
rivertowardsCanton,expectingtofrightenhisadversaryintosubmission.The
Chinesewerenotsoeasilyintimidated,however.Thefortsatthemouthofthe
riverexchangedfirewiththefrigates,killingatleasttwoBritishsailorsand
injuringothers.LuKunhad,moreover,orderedaseriesofboatstobesunk
behindthefrigates,whichthen(toobigtoadvancefurther,theirwayback
blocked)foundthemselvesstranded.Nowsickeningbadlyfrommalaria,Napier
wasforcedtoabandontheBritishfactoryandCanton.Onhiswaybackdownto
thecoast,NapierwasleftfloatingforaweekinthePearlRiverbyvengeful
Cantonesebureaucrats,untilthefrigateswereconfirmedashavingreturnedto
theocean.Weakenedbythedelayonboard,afteranothertwoweekshediedof
feverinMacao.
NevermindthatplentyofBritishonlookersthoughtNapierfoolishlyviolent
andprecipitate,thattradeshouldbewonbypeaceandnotwar.(TheBritish
were,thesinophoneMPforHampshireGeorgeStauntonargued,‘inanational
pointofview,totallyandentirelyinthewrong’.18)Nevermind,either,that
Napierhadbrokenruleuponrule,andignoredthegreaterpartofhisofficial
instructions.Or,again,thatuntilLuKunthreatenedtobeheadhimforspreading
seditiousnoticesabouttheQinggovernment,theCantoneseauthoritieshad
resistedhimpeaceablyenough.(‘SupposeaChinaman’,Napierhimselfwroteto
Palmerstonconcerninghislack-of-passportcontroversy,‘weretolandunder
similarcircumstancesatWhitehall,yourLordshipwouldnotallowhimto
“loiter”astheyhavepermittedme.’19)Britainhadnowbeenoffereditsfirst

decentpretextforopenconflictwithChina,shoulditbeofamindtomakeuse
ofit:theemperor’smaninCantonhadmenacedthelifeoftheking’smanin
Canton;Britishlife,libertyandpropertyhadbeeninsultedandlost–insultsthat
Britishhawksnowinsistedcouldonlybeavengedbyanarmedresponse.
Despitehismanydiplomaticfailures(anddeath),then,Napiersucceeded
superblyintworespects:first,inmovingAnglo-Chineserelationsclosertowards
thepossibilityofarmedconflict,asrelativelypeacefulpragmatismwasousted
byeconomicself-interestandpompousnationalprinciple;andsecond,in
recastingtheBritishimpulsetowardswarasamoralobligation,an‘actof
Charity’towardstheChinesethatwouldsowonlyfriendshipforBritish
gunboats.AlthoughtheadvocatesofwarwouldnotwinoverBritain’sdecisionmakersuntil1839,theirdenunciationsofinsufferableChinesearrogancewere
busilyworkingonBritishpublicopinionintheinterim.Constructedaroundthe
timeoftheOpiumWartojustifyviolenceagainstChina(thehostileChinese,the
argumentwent,haveforcedustodefendourselves),thisstereotypeofthe
obtuselyanti-foreignChinesewouldhauntWesternattitudestotheempire
throughthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.20China,declaredtheChinese
Repositoryinthelastdaysof1836,was‘anationnursingitselfinsolitary,sulky
grandeur,andtreatingasinferiorallothernations,mostfarsuperiorin
civilization,resources,courage,artsandarms...Itseemsindeedstrangethat
thewholefabricoftheChineseEmpiredoesnotfallasunderofitself’.One
‘vigorousandwelldirectedblowfromaforeignpower’,and‘itwilltottertoits
base’.21
In1839,theBritishgovernmentresolvedtoadministerthatblow,afterthe
QinggovernmentrefusedBritishsmugglersfood,waterandtradeuntilthey
promisedtostophaulingtheirshipfulsofopiumintoChina,andCanton’s
merchantlobbyboredownonForeignSecretaryPalmerstontointervene.On18
October,PalmerstoninformedhismaninChina,CaptainCharlesElliot,thata
fleetwouldreachChinathefollowingyeartofighttheQing.‘Alltheworldmust
rejoicethatsuchaforceishere’,crowedtheChineseRepositoryfromsouth

China,watchingtheexpedition’sshipssailoffinlateJune1840intotheirfirst
warwithChina.22
InChinatoday,theOpiumWaristhetraumaticinaugurationofthecountry’s
modernhistory.Historybooks,televisiondocumentariesandmuseumschorusa
simple,receivedwisdomabouttheconflict,whichgoessomethinglikethis.In
theearlynineteenthcentury,unscrupulousBritishtradersbeganforcing
enormousquantitiesofIndianopiumonChineseconsumers.WhentheChinese


governmentdeclaredwaronopium,inordertoavertthemoral,physicaland
financialdisasterthreatenedbytheempire’sgrowingdrughabit,British
warshipsbulliedChinaoutoftensofmillionsofdollars,anditseconomicand
politicalindependence.Gunboatdiplomacy,opiumandthefirst‘Unequal
Treaty’of1842(followedbyasecondin1860,concludingthe‘secondOpium
War’begunin1856)broughtChina–untiltheendoftheeighteenthcentury,
probablytherichestandmostpowerfulcivilizationintheworld–toitsknees,
leavingitspeopleslavishaddicts,incapableofresistingsubsequentwavesof
European,AmericanandJapanesecolonizers.23ThisaccountoftheOpiumWar
isnowoneofthefoundingmythsofChinesenationalism:thefirstgreatcallto
armsagainstabullyingWest;butalsothestartofChina’s‘centuryof
humiliation’(ausefulpedagogicalshorthandforeverythingthathappenedin
Chinabetween1842and1949)atthehandsofimperialism.24Itmarksthe
beginningofChina’sstruggletofreeitselffrom‘semi-colonialsemi-feudalism’
(Mao’sownsummaryofthecenturyofChineseexperienceafter1842),andto
‘standup’(Maoagain)asastrongmodernnation–abattlethatends,naturally,
withCommunisttriumphin1949.‘ThestoryofChina’smodernhistory[from
theOpiumWartothepresentday]’,summarizesa2007historytextbookinuse
inoneofChina’seliteinstitutionsofhighereducation,BeijingUniversity,
isthehistoryofthecourageousstrugglebythegood-heartedmassesfornationalsurvivalandto
accomplishthegreatrevivaloftheChineserace.Itisthehistoryofeverynationalityinthecountry,

undertheleadershipoftheChineseCommunistParty,undertakingagreatandpainfulstruggletowin
nationalindependenceandliberationthroughthe1949Revolution;itisthehistoryofanextremely
weak,impoverishedandoldChinagraduallygrowing,thankstothesocialistrevolution...intoa
prosperous,flourishingandvitalnewsocialistChina...Whataretheaimsofstudyingourmodern
history?...TogaindeepinsightintohowHistoryandthePeoplecametochooseMarxism,cameto
choosetheChineseCommunistPartyandcametochoosesocialism.25

AstherulersofthecontemporaryPeople’sRepublicswingbetweenselfconfidenceaboutitsmiracleriseandsuspicionofaWestsupposedlydetermined
tocontainit,theOpiumWariskeptatthefrontofnationalmemory.Particularly
sincethe1990s,whentheCommunistPartybeganrallyinganti-foreign
nationalismtoshoreupitsownlegitimacyaftertheTiananmencrackdown,the
OpiumWarhasbeencalledintoserviceinsuccessive‘patrioticeducation’
campaignswagedonmonumentsandintextbooks,newspapersandfilms.26
WiththeturmoiloftheTiananmenuprisingof1989blamedon‘Western
bourgeoisliberalization’,thehundredandfiftiethanniversaryofthefirstOpium
Warin1990offeredapublicrelationsgifttothegovernment,theopportunityto
splashstirringeditorialsacrossthemediaaboutthis‘nationaltragedy’inflicted


bythegunboatsoftheWest.27‘Inordertoprotectitsevilopiumtrade,’the
People’sDaily(theCommunistParty’sofficialnewsorgan)remindedits
readers,
theBritishgovernmentpoisonedtheChinesepeople,stolehugequantitiesofsilver,andopenlyengaged
uponimperialistaggression–asaresultofwhichtheChinesefellintoanabyssofsuffering.This,as
ComradeMaoZedongpointedout,begantheChinesepeople’sresistanceagainstimperialismandits
runningdogs.TheOpiumWarandtheactsofaggressionthatfolloweditawokeintheChinesepeoplea
desirefordevelopmentandsurvival,initiatingtheirstrugglesforindependenceandliberation...The
factsundeniablytellusthattheChinesepeoplehaveonlymanagedtostandupthankstotheleadership
oftheChineseCommunistParty...onlysocialismcansaveanddevelopChina...Raiseeverhigher
thegloriousbannerofpatriotism,commemoratethe150thanniversaryoftheOpiumWar.28

UnorthodoxreappraisalsoftheOpiumWarscanjanglehigh-levelpolitical
nerves.In2006,thegovernmentcloseddownChina’sleadingliberalweekly,
FreezingPoint(Bingdian),becauseitrananarticlebyaphilosophyprofessor
calledYuanWeishichallengingtextbookdoctrineon(amongstotherthings)the
secondOpiumWar,which‘viciouslyattackedthesocialistsystem[and]
attemptedtovindicatecriminalactsbytheimperialistpowersininvadingChina.
Itseriouslydistortedhistoricalfacts;itseriouslycontradictednewspropaganda
discipline;itseriouslydamagedthenationalfeelingsoftheChinesepeople...
andcreatedbadsocialinfluence.’29(Toofferaroughlyequivalentanglophone
analogue:imagineProspectbeingshutdownforrunningarevisionistarticleon
theScottishClearancesortheIrishFamine.)Aroundthissamemoment,the
governmentdecidedtoreplacethesoporificlecturesinMarxism-Leninism
compulsoryacrossundergraduatecourseswithclassesinmodernChinese
history–beginning,ofcourse,withtheOpiumWar–ensuringthatChina’s
brightestandbestemergedfromtheiruniversitycareerswithacorrect
understandingofthepast,anditsrelationshiptothepresent.
Atthetimethatitwasfought,bycontrast,mostoftheChineseempire–
includinganumberofthosewhoweresupposedtobedirectingproceedings–
hadsomedifficultyacknowledginganOpiumWarwiththeEnglishwas
happeningatall.Theemperorhadpracticallynoideahewassupposedtobeat
waruntiltheendofJuly1840,almostayearaftertheBritishjudgedthatarmed
hostilitieshadcommenced.HehadlittleclueastowhyEnglishgunswere
pummellinghisempire’seastcoastuntilthesecondweekofAugustthatyear,
whenthefleetsailedintoTianjin,thenearestporttoBeijing,todeliveraletter
fromtheBritishforeignsecretaryto‘theMinisteroftheEmperor’.Afterthe
conflict’sexistencewasatlastofficiallyacknowledged,theemperorandhismen
stillhadtroubledignifyingitwiththeterm‘war’,preferringtonameita‘border
provocation’or‘quarrel’(bianxin),atomizedintoaseriesoflocalclashesalong

China’smaritimeperimeter.Evenwhiletheywererouting,withthenewest
militarytechnologyoftheday,badlytrainedanddirectedChinesearmies,the
Britishwereidentifiedincourtdocumentsofthetimeas‘clowns’,‘bandits’,
‘pirates’,‘robbers’,‘rebels’(occasionally,the‘outrageousrebels’)30–temporary
insurgentsagainstaworldorderstillfirmlycentredintheQingstate.31This,in
theeyesofChina’srulers,wasjustanotheraggravationnomoreworryingthan
theotherdomesticandfrontierrevoltsthegovernmentwasstrugglingto
suppressaroundthesametime.
Yetsomehow,inthecenturyandahalfsinceitwasfought,theOpiumWar
hasbeentransformedfromamere‘borderprovocation’intothetragicbeginning
ofChina’smodernhistory,andakeypropforCommunistOne-Partyrule.This
contemporaryrecastingoftheconflictconvenientlyremindstheChinesepeople
oftheircountry’svictimizationbytheWest,andofeverythingthatwaswrong
aboutthe‘oldsociety’beforetheCommunistPartycamealongtomakethings
rightagain.WhentheWesttriestocriticizeChina,mostoftenforitshumanrightsrecord,orforitslackofanindependentjudiciaryandpress,Chinese
voices–bothinsideandoutsidethegovernment–canfightbackwiththeOpium
War.A2004reader’scommentarticlefortheChinaDaily(thegovernment’s
English-languagenewspaper)denouncedthewholebusinessas‘treacherybythe
Westonascaleneverbeforeexperienced...theuseofthedrugopiumsetthe
standardofthemistakesofthewestforthenext150years...TheWestern
bigotsandzealots,however,haveneverceasedtohavedesignsonChinaandon
China’swealthandprosperity,eventoday...IftheWestandtheirrunningdogs
ofwarnowexpectmercyfromChinaforallthesepastinvasionsandthefts,they
areseriouslymistaken.’32
LookbeyondcurrentChinesehistoricalorthodoxy,however,andavery
differentpictureofChina,andofitsfirstdeclaredclashwithaWesternpower,
beginstoemerge.Nineteenth-centuryChinawasnotacountryinstinctivelyset
againstallthingsforeign,butratherasplinteredsocietycapable(likemost
societies)ofabroadrangeofreactions–uncertainty,suspicion,condescension,

curiosity–totheoutsideworld.Themerefactthattwentieth-centuryChina
cametoattachsomuchimportancetotheOpiumWaristestamenttothe
country’sopenness,ratherthanhostility,totheWest.Asitwasfought,thewar
struckWesternobserversasepochal,butappearedtomanyofitsChinese
observerssubsidiarytograndernarrativesoflocaldisorderandtroubleonthe
empire’sotherfrontiers.Yetbyrechristening,sincethe1920s,theOpiumWar
asthestartofmodernChinesehistory,China’sestablishmenthassubscribedtoa
thoroughlyWestern-centricviewofthecountry’spastthatviewsantebellum