For our 10/13 session, please prepare to take one of the following three sides.

Encounter: Can We Save the Empire? Should We Save the Empire?

The Qing Empire and its peoples face critical choices. Foreign powers have invaded, forcing us to permit them to live amongst us along our coast, promoting their beliefs, sullying our empire. Rebellions have raged in different places, driven by different forces but always challenging Qing rule and producing instability. How are we to cope? What can and should be done? For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll compress the period 1860-1910 and bring together groups that arose in different places and situations to discuss how to deal with the external and internal threats. What are the most pressing issues? How can they be dealt with? What changes are needed to ensure survival? Ci Xi, the Empress Dowager (Tz’u Hsi 慈禧, 1835-1908) will preside over the discussion.

Three groups will participate, each with their own assessment of our challenges and how best to cope with them.
Leaders of the groups:
Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang 李鴻章, 1823-1901)
Kang Youwei (K’ang Yu-wei 康有為, 1858-1927)
Qiu Jin (Ch’iu Chin 秋瑾, 1875-1907)

Understanding the difference between economic growth and economic development is central to understanding why some economies stagnate and other economies increase their per capita output and achieve economic development. This insight helps explain the relative difference in the performance of the Chinese economy and the Western European economies from 1800 to present times. In particular, this explains how the Western European countries with their relatively small populations could rapidly grow their economies and achieve dominant global power over the 1800-2000 period. This also explains the relative decline of the Western powers since 2000 compared to China which has had faster productivity growth and economic development.

Economic Growth + Productivity Increase = Economic Development

Example 1: In country A, both population and GDP double in one century. Economic growth is achieved but not economic development because the GDP per capita is unchanged (no productivity increase per capita).

Example 2: In country B, population doubles and GDP quadruples in one century. Economic development is achieved because the GDP per capita is doubled. 

Chart 1, attached below, shows these concepts. From 1800-1960 the Chinese per capita GDP changed very little. Economic output rose mostly in line with more labor inputs, so there was no per capita productivity gain or economic development. After 1980 productivity rose steadily as China embraced economic change and modernization.

China's current President, Xi Jinping, understands this relationship which is why he is promoting STEM education and scientific research to sustain GDP growth and economic development despite a shrinking labor force due to population aging and the decrease in the birth rate observed since the 1970s. 

Also attached are 2 publications from the US Department of Labor that explain productivity. These are very clear and designed for K-12 usage.

References

https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/

Maddison Historical Statistics. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/?lang=en

1. Financial Requirements of the Treaty of Nanjing (1842)

The 1842 Treaty of Nanjing required China to pay 21 million silver taels to Britain in reparations for the opium that was seized and destroyed by Commissioner Lin Zexu. The reparations bill is equal to about $642 million in current prices (1 Tael = 1.33 ounce, 1 ounce = $23.00).

The Chinese seizure of the opium was legal because opium was illegal in China…as it was in Britain. In other words, the treaty required the innocent Chinese to repay the guilty British for the punishment they received after violating drug laws in China and ignoring repeated warnings to stop the drug trade.  

2. Beneficiaries of the Treaty of Nanjing (1842)

The first benefiary of the treaty was the British merchants that gained access to 5 port cities to expand trade. 

The next beneficiary was the British government Treasury. The Treasury benefitted because the UK-China trade balance was improved as merchants sold more opium and goods in China in exchange for silver. This increased trade more than offset the British purchases of Chinese products such as tea and porcelain. The British thinking was “mercantilist”; reflecting the view that international trade should promote trade surpluses that would result in a net inflow of silver which would financially strengthen the exporting country.

Every other country that imposed similar treaties on China also benefitted. In total, 21 Treaties were imposed by 19 countries. Britain (8), Russia (7), France (6), USA (3), Japan (3). 

3. Why Was the Treaty of Nanjing Unequal

The treaty was unequal because it granted rights to British in China without any benefits for China in the UK. The British got access to many ports to trade and legal extraterritoriality for British subjects which gave them immunity from Chinese laws.

The 1844 US-China treaty of Wangxia, which copied the treaty of Nanjing, was similarly unequal. As an example, while the 1844 Treaty of Wangxia was in force allowing Americans to trade and pursue missionary work in China, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act restricted Chinese immigration into the United States. This was blatantly unequal.

4. How To Teach about The Humiliation of the Treaty of Nanjing?

The Treaty of Nanjing was an extremely important event in Chinese history. It was a huge humiliation that has since influenced many Chinese nationalists.

I have taught this in the conventional way, but have been trying to think of a way to make the Chinese experience more meaningful. The following is a way that may engage students.

4.1 Compare the Opium War to the Current USA-Mexican Cartel Drug War

A hypothetical modern comparative example would be if Mexico attacked the US and required the US to sign a treaty requiring the actions listed below. Each of these concessions have a direct parallel in the Treaty of Nanjing.

Hypothetical US-Mexico Sinaloa Treaty (based on 1842 Nanjing Treaty)

The USA hereby agrees to undertake the following actions as reparations for the actions taken against importers of illegal drugs into the USA.

1) Repay the Sinaloa Cartel for all drug shipments seized by the US;

2) Allow the Sinaloa Cartel to open and staff 5 distribution centers in US cities/ports;

3) Exempt the cartel members from future US laws (allow extraterritoriality);

4) Release all cartel members from US prisons; and

5) Permanently cede US territory to Mexico for use by its cartels and military

*********

This is the most one-sided, ridiculous document I have ever read, although it does remind me of a recent email from a parent... I digress.  The Chinese have to pay, and give up Hong Kong, and agree to let British run their own affairs as a way of ending a "misunderstanding."  There is nothing about the British paying for the lives destroyed by opium they brought, or for taking any responsibility for any of the issues.  I think it would be interesting to compare this document to the Treaty of Versailles, and look at how China and Germany were treated by the military powers that overcame them.

Jennifer - you've captured the sense of outrage that many felt. This was the first of what became known as unequal treaties. Additional ones were imposed on China, but also on Japan. And Japan sought to impose its own later on China (https://china.usc.edu/japanese-government-%E2%80%9Ctwenty-one-demands%E2%80%9D-april-26-1915).

In 1919 the Soviet Union renounced Russia's unequal treaties with China, but then forged its own to secure control over the Chinese Eastern Railway in Northern Manchuria. That railway was the single largest railway concession in China. In 1925, the Soviet Union signed a deal with Japan recognizing Japan's control over the South Manchuria Railway. Soviet propaganda always called on foreign powers to emulate it's renunciation of unequal treaties, but it was quite happy to secure its own privileges.

The US follow-up to the Treaty of Nanjing was the Treaty of Wangxia: https://china.usc.edu/treaty-wangxia-treaty-wang-hsia-may-18-1844

Summary

Foreign powers attacked China many times during the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949). After at least 4 conflicts, China was required to pay reparations to the foreign countries.

From 1842-1901, these reparations totaled 677 million taels of silver equal to 27,916 tons worth about $US 20.69 billion.

Note that the primary currency unit then used in China was silver taels. 1 Tael = 1.33 ounce or 37.88 grams. As of 10/13/2021, 1 silver ounce = $US 23.00

The value of the territorial and trade concessions China was forced to make are in addition to this huge amount.   

Details

1. The Treaty of Nanjing (August 29, 1842) required China to pay 21 million silver taels to Britain in reparations for the opium that was seized and destroyed. This is equal to about $642 million in current prices.

2. The Treaty of Tianjin (6/1858) required China to pay 6 million silver taels in reparations for costs incurred in warfare against China - 4 million for Britain, 2 million for France. This is equal to about $184 million in current prices.

3. The Treaty of Shimonoseki (April 17, 1895) signed after the Sino-Japanese War required China to pay 200 million silver taels to Japan.  This is equal to about $6.1 billion in current prices.

4. The Boxer Protocol (September 7, 1901) required China to pay the Eight-Nation Alliance 450 million silver taels.  This is equal to about $13.76 billion in current prices.

The idea of comparing the Treaty of Nanjing to the Treaty of Versaille is very thought-provoking! The ripple effects of these treaties seem far more dangerous than I first thought.