The First Opium War, its causes and effects?

           

            The First Opium War was a perfect example of the East (China, Japan, Korea, etc.) and West (Europe and the Americas) fighting over control of a situation in which mutual power was needed.  The Qing dynasty was in power in China during the first Opium War and the Qing were infamous for their strong handed approach to leadership.  When dealing with the West, the Qing at first where in complete control of the relationship.  The West, the British in particular wanted tea from China; whereas all the Qing were interested in was the West’s money.  The British Empire did not look favorably upon this method of trade; at this point in history they had amassed one of the largest empires in the history of the world and they preferred the barter system to outright payment.  China under the rule of the Qing had almost everything they wanted or needed but the British saw something they didn’t have and this product would swing China into bartering with the British as opposed to the capitalist system they were in at that time; this item was opium.

 

         British opium was grown in India before and around the time of the Opium Wars.  Opium was initially used to cure diarrhea but it soon was more commonly used as a recreational drug and outlawed in Britain by the year 1799 C.E.  The Qing banned both production and use of Opium in 1800 and in 1813 it outlawed smoking opium.

            The East India Company, which at this time was the economic arm of the British Empire invested heavily in opium cultivation.  When the Qing Dynasty forbade the selling of Opium the East India Company found other ways to sell opium but not directly.  The East India Company sold opium through middlemen who operated illegally and sold the opium to the Chinese public.  By doing this they got their product out into the market and sure enough the public wanted more of this highly addictive drug which gave the British what they wanted, a trading leverage they could use against the Qing Empire.

            By the year 1831 there were almost 200 smuggler’s boats off the coast of China.  The Qing Empire called for public debate on how to solve the opium issue.  This debate came to the conclusion that controlling the user was not working so well, so maybe controlling the sellers of opium would be a better approach.  Lin Zexu was appointed by the Qing Dynasty to deal with the Opium Issue and arrested some 1700 dealers; ordering western traders surrender all opium in exchange for tea. When these western traders refused he laid a siege on them starting the Opium Wars.

            When the western traders finally surrendered to Lin Zexu they turned in 2.6 million pounds of opium which was poured into the China Sea.  The British saw these actions as an act of war and started to make war on the Qing.  The British sent from India a small expeditionary force and shut down the ports of Ningbo and Tianjin.  A preliminary agreement was reached to cede Hong Kong and pay war losses to the British but it was not well received on both sides.  Shortly after this weak peace was made hostilities resumed again, the resurgence of war did not last long and the British soon defeated the weaker Qing Dynasty.  A peace treaty was signed aboard a ship at gun point, obviously this treaty favored the British, not the Qing.  The Treaty of Nanjing officially ended the First Opium War; the treaty handed Hong Kong over to the British, opened five new ports, granted Britain "most favored nation" status, and the Qing had to pay 21 million silver dollars to cover British expenses and war losses.  This treaty also opened up trade to the United States and France.

The U.S. Government and Reform in the Late 19th Century

 

            In the latter half of the 19^th century the United States was expanding westward.  Lands acquired from Mexico in the Mexican / American War was free to be settled now without the question of slavery becoming an issue.  Also the wrath of the Civil War on the south and the influx of immigration made westward expansion a top priority for the United States Government and an opportunity for many to start over.  In actuality, there was a perfect storm brewing in the United States caused by several different factors; many things caused completion of Manifest Destiny to be a main goal after the Civil War.
    

What has inspired this essay is a chapter from: “American Issues:  Volume 2: Since 1865.”  The readings in this chapter bring many different views of the then growing American West into perspective.  While reading this you are in the shoes of Indians, congress, settlers, and farmers; all of these people have an issue with the American West or have played a major role in its history.  Through reading these stories it helps the reader to understand many of the complicated facets that compose American life today.

While reading this essay I noticed some things that intrigued me.  The United States in today’s world, even after the events in Tucson is a divided, partisan nation.  These stories I believe deserve much reflection, but I wish to view them from a different angle.  To do this I must purpose the question; when did we lose faith in the federal government and would it be possible to accomplish some of these goals in this very partisan world we live in?

How was the West won; from an American settlers perspective?  There were several things that made the conquest of the American West by the American settlers possible.  The following is a brief list of some of the things that helped make western expansion possible:

·         Creation of Trans-Continental Rail road and expansion of rail road systems throughout the American West.

·         Free or nearly free land opened up to settlers by the federal government

·         U.S military intervention driving Indians onto smaller and smaller reservations opening up more and more land for White Americans to settle.

I’m sure that one could make a valid case why other things could be listed as factors on this list but for simplicities sake I have chose only to list these three.  These three things may not appear to be attached in any way but they share one major thing in common with each other.  All three of these factors were paid for, supported, and initiated by the United States Federal Government. 
 

With all this being said I again ask the question of when did we lose faith in the federal government?  At this point in American history people wanted the government to be active in their lives.  American settlers in the west wanted goods to be able to come into the area, as well as leave it and the creation of the railroad systems helped make this possible.  Why is the government relevant to this; railroads in the west were encouraged by the federal government.  The federal government acquired lands, and compensated railroad companies well for expanding rail lines west.  The first story of the reading is about the free land grab in Oklahoma by one of the settlers Hamilton S. Wicks.  Mr. Wicks talks about his experience on the train and how it affected the race for the prime real estate in Oklahoma:

“The occupants of the train now became absorbed in their own fate.  Indeed our train was one of the participants in this unexampled race…”   

I realize that this may not be the best example to use to present the argument that whether people admit it or even realize it, they want their federal government to look out for them.  This excerpt does show the importance of the rail road to the growing West though.  Another one of the readings in this chapter shows beyond a reasonable doubt that American’s want government intervention.  
    

The second article is also from an American settler’s perspective of the west, but it is about the issues with farming and some of the farmers own explanations of how to fix the situation.  I found the arguments proposed to be practical, but in today’s bipartisan political climate, I wonder how some of these thoughts would have been received.  

American farmers after the Civil War faced a relentless series of problems.  Farming after the Civil War was plagued with overproduction which caused plummeting prices and new technology which was too expensive.  Farmers viewed themselves at this time as the back bone of society, and yet the most unappreciated.  In several cases at this time, the farmer made less than his workers.  It truly was less profitable to farm.

     Farmers proposed many ways of correcting this issue.  Ideas such as unionizing and government intervention were thrown out.  One of the things that the Farmers Alliance (a farmers union) called for is: 

“The ownership by the government of all railroads, telegraphs, and telephones”

      I think this statement is reasonable, but again, where was the outcry over government intervention?  If there was none then when did the American people become so paranoid of the federal government?  Those questions I don’t know the answer too but when asking those questions I feel that it shows how over time a societies concerns change with the times.  Years from now will the question of government intervention still be an issue or will it be another fad for the history books?

19th Century Korea: Rise or Fall?

1.     

            What is the economic development in 19^th Century Korea? Do you think it was prosperous or depreciating?

Eighteenth century Korea was an ever changing society in that century.  There are many factors that brought fourth these reforms.  Some of the things that changed Korea in the 19^th century were:

·         Stable Population Growth

·         High Productivity per Capita

·         Weakening Central Government

·         New Technology

The biggest change to Korean culture in the 19^th century was in my opinion new technologies.  New crops, forms of irrigation, and agricultural techniques allowed for more food to be produced and the increased higher productivity per capita.  More food leads to a societies ability to sustain a larger population.

Economic growth transformed Seoul from merely a center of government into a center of economic and cultural activity. With the rise of a wealthy merchant class came a challenge to the traditional Confucian social order. Gradually the financial successes of merchants forced some adjustments in social attitudes although scholarship continued to be seen as the most noble pursuit.

Seoul's expanding population required still more living space by the mid-1800's so the city pushed outward beyond its original walls. By this time, more foreign influences were seeping into Korea. Westerners and Japan were applying ever greater pressure on Korea to open up to trade.

By the late 1800's, Korea had been forced to end its long, self-imposed isolation. Japan, the U.S., and various European nations won trade treaties. With the opening up of foreign trade, Korea had to modernize its ports. It began to build a railroad to link the southern port city of Pusan to Seoul, and it gradually adopted other forms of western technology. Foreigners introduced new ideas as well as inventions to Seoul. At the same time, Korean diplomats and students who had gone abroad returned home with plans for improving and expanding their nation's capital. They wanted to model Seoul on the cities they had seen abroad.  With all this being said I think that overall, Korean society improved in the 19th century.

Scouting in Sub-Saharan Africa

             

              On Tuesday, January 18^th, 2011 Shawnee State University welcomed Mr. Euloge Ishimwe , as a visiting lecturer. Mr. Euloge Ishimwe is Regional Communications Manager with the World Scout Bureau.  Scouts International is the parent group to what we call in the United States as the Boy and Girl Scouts of America.  Both the Boy and Girl Scouts of America are reputable organizations with proud traditions here in the United States.  They are both known for their fund raising in this country, the Girl Scouts for the cookies and Boy Scouts for the popcorn.  Many generations have participated in both these organizations, my father was an Eagle Scout with the Boy Scouts and I participated in the organization when I was younger.

                When I first heard about the lecture I was excited to go hear it; when I found out it was about Scouts International my interest decreased; it was only because going in I was misinformed.  For whatever reason being I thought the lecture was to be about politics in Sub-Saharan Africa, not Scouts International in Sub-Saharan Africa.   Although I had a somewhat low expectation, I was very pleased with the lecture on Scouts International and what they are doing around the world.  One of the things that they do that I feel is very helpful is their initiative to teach their scouts how to farm, and not just cash crops but self sustaining crops. 

                Poverty and disease run ramped in some areas of Sub-Saharan Africa.  One of the many factors that affect the high poverty levels is that there are very few jobs.  By teaching these young scouts how to farm you are giving them the tools to provide for themselves and their families.  My personal belief is that the best way to better a society is to better the people in it through education; when the people of any given society are better educated and more informed; it betters the society they live in.

 

                The kind of farming also makes a big difference in the life style of the farmer.  There are two types of crops that are grown in this area of the world; those two types are cash crops and self sustaining crops.  These are very broad terms but most crops can be classified into one of these categories.  Cash crops are crops that are raised for the intent of selling them; self sustaining crops are raised with intention of using them by the farmer, and then selling the excess.  Some examples of cash crops are jute, coffee, cocoa, sugar cane, bananas, oranges, cotton, tobacco, poppies, and cannabis.  Examples of self sustaining crops are corn, wheat, cabbages, tomatoes, potatoes, beans, carrots, pumpkin, squash, lettuce, and onions.

 

In a purely capitalist utopian model, there is absolutely nothing wrong with cash crops but like in a lot of fields, some things may work in theory, but not in practical application.  When farmers in impoverished countries grow cash crops, they can turn around and sell said crops to the developed world for a profit.  The only problem with this system is that so many impoverished farmers do this the high supply of these foods on the market keep costs low which in turn leads to a low profit margin.  The low profit margin by default prevents the farmer from buying food for his family because of the minimal return.  Lack of food causes malnutrition, aids the spread of disease, and weakens society overall.  If farmers in this region grew self sustaining crops they wouldn’t have near the amount of capital but they would have food of their own so the less money wouldn’t be near a detrimental because food needs would be met; small amounts of cash crops could be grown as well to supplement some income.  In my opinion the best way to approach this situation would be to grow enough self sustaining crops to feed the farmer and his family and then grow cash crops with the remainder of the land so more capital can come in.  If every farmer did this it would also make growing cash crops more profitable and farming a profitable profession.

          

                Another reason that I agree with Scouts International’s view of teaching people of Africa self sustaining agriculture is that it is not a monetary hand out.  I’m not saying that monetary hand outs are bad but look at it from the example of a Haitian or any other population that receives aid.  Monetary hand outs are short term answers to long term problems, what is the recipient of the generosity to do when the money is gone and there is still no place for them to work?  The only thing they can do at that point is to ask for more monetary assistance.  If half the wealth distributed by NGO’s was invested in manufacturing and job creation, long term solutions could be found for long term problems; economic independence is a long term goal for any country.

    

                In conclusion, when analyzing an organization like this I think the question one needs to ask themselves is would they support this organization?  I can honestly say that I would support Scouting International, not soley for their work in Africa but for their work across the entire world.  Scouting makes a positive impact in a lot of children’s lives and it is good to know that the organization is working to fix very serious but fixable problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.     

  

Japanese Expansion Under Bakufu

Did shogunate expand the borders of Japan? How? How did the Shogunate deal with outlying provinces?

Minamoto no Yoritomo, the first shogun (1192–1199) of the Kamakura shogunate

The first question to be asked is what exactly is the shogunate?  The shogunate or bakufu as known in Japan where military rulers in Japan; as time went on their rule on the military life spread into other aspects of society giving them even more power.  By the time of their fall in the year 1867 C.E. they controlled most of Japanese society under nominal leadership from the emperor.

The title of bakufu was first used during the Heian period; the title was occasionally bestowed to a general after a successful campaign.  In the year 1185 C.E. Minamoto Yoritomo gained military control of Japan and seven years later he assumed the title of shogun and formed the first bakufu.  Over the next 680 years in Japan the power of the Bakufu would rise and fall many times; revolution constantly kept the power at a pendulum swing and the Japanese society seemed to gravitate towards the type of society in which the bakufu held power.  The bakufu came to its official end on November 9^th, 1867 when Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the 15^th shogun “put his prerogatives at the emperors disposal” and then resigned.  This officially swung power from the bakufu back to the emperor for the final time.

With the history of the bakufu being laid out now the question at hand may be answered.  The first part of the question I will try to answer is that of “did the bakufu expand the borders of Japan?”  The answer to that question in my mind is no.  During this time feudal Japan was in an almost constant state of civil war.  There would be eras of peace but eventually someone in power would die, and a power vacuum would be created causing the bakufu to fight for power, not toward outward expansion.  The borders did change from time to time, when Japan was at internal peace the goal always seemed to be that of expansion.  Time and time again, the Japanese would try to expand into the Korean Peninsula and time and time again they were driven back.  The Korean Peninsula has always been a source of tension because it has always been the buffer between Japan and China.  This constant ebb and flow has also caused Korea to have puppet governments in place from time to time that operate in part under Japanese or Chinese control.  With all that being said the reason I say no to the question of did Japan expand its borders under the bakufu is because any gains made were quickly lost; significant territory was not added to Japan for any extended amount of time during this period.

The second question is” how did the bakufu deal with the outlying proveniences?”  The bakufu dealt with their subjects in an interesting manor.  The shogunate had the power to discard, annex and transform domains.  The sankin-kotai system of alternative residence required each daimyo would reside in alternate years between the han and attendance in Edo.  In their absence from Edo it was also required that they leave family as hostage until their return.  the huge expenditure sankin-kotai imposed on each han helped centralize aristocratic alliances and ensured loyalty to the Shogun as each representative doubled as a potential hostage.  These actions took by the bakufu may seem harsh, but helped keep society in check.     


        

A Reflection on “Why Study History"

Why study history; that is the very question that the author asks?  Peter Sterns, the author of “Why Study History” reasons that why we study history is because “we virtually must, to gain access to the laboratory of human experience.”  Although I wouldn’t use those exact words I agree with Mr. Sterns and his view of the relevance of history.

There are several reasons as to why the study of history is relevant.  My main reason for viewing history as a master science is that history helps us understand change and how the society we live in is the way it is.  People speak, think, and do certain things in a particular way for a reason; but seldom is the question asked why we do what we do?  Some examples of this are:

1. You better… or your name is Mud
2. You traitor! You, you, you Benedict Arnold!
3. Day light savings
4. Why do we (American’s) drink coffee when the preferred drink by most of the western Anglo world is tea?

All of these things have some explanation in American history and for the majority of Americans we say or do these things with out giving any thought to it.  The first saying is attributed to the Lincoln assassination; a doctor with the last name of Mud gave medical assistance to John Wilkes Booth.  By doing this he made the name “Mud” the “Hitler” of the late 1800’s.  Since then no people with the last name of Mud have been able to accomplish any prominence for being anything other than the ancestor of one of the countries great douche bags.

While on the topic of classical American “douche bags” Benedict Arnold comes to mind.  At the beginning of the Revolutionary War Benedict Arnold was a supporter of the American colonies and the war for independence from Britain.  At some point he felt that he made the wrong decision, tried to surrender West Point to the British and when his plan was ousted he changed sides to fight with the English.  While writing this and being a native Ohioan, I wonder if Lebron will spend his after life in the same place as Mr. Arnold?

Day light savings time is not an American idea, but it is practiced by Americans and many now question, so what’s the point in this crap anyway!  It was put in place to give people more daylight to get there work done.  Now that people have electricity and farmers have realized they will just wake up at sun up whether the sun comes up at 6 or 7 in the morning; the whole concept seems to be out of date.  Although many Americans feel that the practice is a waste and more confusion than what it is worth, when the topic of dropping the change comes up people act as though blasphemy is being spouted and the sinner who speaks it should meet an untimely demise because of his pagan beliefs.

America’s choice of drink before the inception of carbonated beverages was coffee.  Coffee is still a major drink in the United States, ask anyone from Seattle, but seldom is the question asked; why not tea?  In 1773 the British imposed a tax on tea, and the colonies were not pleased with this decision.  Long story short a bunch of white dudes dressed like Indians, ruined a lot of tea, and a nation avoided taxes as usual and drank more coffee.  The rest is history and Starbucks should now be considered a patriotic institution for adopting the American dogma of “screw taxes!”

So I realize that all these things seem kind of trivial but it is an example of why history is vital.  If I never had studied history I would have never wondered why my father drinks coffee in the morning, but an Englishmen drinks tea.  The question of why American’s twice a year either show up an hour late and/or early for work.  The answer to why I have never met any Mr. or Ms. Mud in my life or why Benedict Arnold took his talents to South Beach, wait, wait; I got that one backwards.  Understanding history is how we understand ourselves; Mr. Sterns put it best so in closing I will close with another line from him:

“Only through studying history can we grasp how things change; only through history can we begin to comprehend the factors that cause change; and only through history can we understand what elements of an institution or a society persist despite change."

 

Stories of Life & Labor: Oral Histories from Portsmouth, Ohio

     For our last assignment in Digital History we were to interview people who worked for the railroad around the late 70's here in Southern Ohio.  My assigned worker was a man by the name of Buck Flesher; Mr. Flesher lived in Chillicothe and worked for the B&O railroad from the late 1970's to the early 90's.

     On December 1st I drove out to Mr. Flesher's residence to conduct an interview with him about his time with the railroad.  He currently resides in Waverly, OH and in his home it is evident that he is a railroad man.  He showed me some of his collection of historical railroad items that he keeps in storage and it was very impressive.  Everything from tools, pictures, tickets, and the like; Mr. Flesher is very proud about the time he served in the railroad industry.  After viewing this memorabilia and filling out paper work it was time to do the interview.

     This is my first interview so it does have some faults with it; but all things considered I feel that the interview went very well.  Mr. Flesher and I had a discussion on a broad range of topics from everything about his job in the railroad, his personal life and views about the railroad.  Although it is probably not one of the most purely fact filled interviews done for this project, it does give the employees of the railroad a more personal touch, and I thank Mr. Flesher for sharing his views with me.

     I have attached a audio clip from our interview; it may seem like it jumps around from subject to subject a lot and that is because it does.  When compiling this clip I wanted to take something from the various things we spoke of in our interviews and the colorful montage that I have put together I feel best represents that.

    I hope everyone that listens enjoys; and this won't be my last interview, I enjoyed the interview process immensely.

WB