In one of the biggest actions the administration has taken against fentanyl trafficking, the U.S. on Tuesday announced a series of indictments and sanctions against 14 people and 14 firms across China and Canada related to the import of the drug to the United States.
If you’re downvoting this: the opium war was a series of conflicts where Britain fought to smuggle opium into China and China trying to stop it. The Boxer rebellion was an anti colonial uprising to kick westerns (British, American, and others) out of China. The Boxer protocols was a heavily imbalanced treaty that heavily destabilized China and in my opinion put conditions in place that made communist China possible.
We get the references, it was just a shit comment.
I don’t think every single person got the reference but that aside I don’t think it was a “shit” comment either. The opium war and the boxer protocols are very much in the minds of the Chinese communist leadership, which could be just Xi Jinping nowadays. Xi has referred to them as an “intense humiliation for the country” and a “great pain for its people”. These cultural memories are, in my opinion, definitely playing a part in china’s policies when it comes to fentanyl. And that’s how I interpreted that comment. Perhaps it could have been started less crassly but the core point that in the past the shoe was on the other foot is completely valid.
It’s not really valid to speak of shoes and feet unless the US were the ones subjecting China to the opium, which isn’t true and this whole thread conveniently glossed over.
American traders participated in trading opium in China (source)
Let me be clear, you’re talking about shoes and feet like the British weren’t the primary architects and mechanics of the opium wars and the American merchant participants were instead. “Cultural memories” etc.
I think as far as the Chinese are concerned British and American intervention in China is six of one and a half a dozen of the other
There’s history and there are opinions
History is about taking imperfect information and constructing a narrative that fits as best as possible. Leopold von Ranke said historians should show “how it actually was” (he literally wrote “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist”). That simply isn’t possible. I think it was David Hackett Fischer who said something along the lines of a historian can only know something about something, which is a far cry from “how it actually was.”
Almost all history is an informed opinion backed up by primary and secondary sources. That’s why we have revisionist history, feminist history, & Marxist history (among others). All these historiographical schools are looking at mostly the same sources and drawing different conclusions. New narratives; new opinions.
I’ve studied this region but I am by no means an expert in it. I’ve actually spent more time on Japanese history than Chinese history but I have studied it. I could be wrong but I firmly believe that Western intervention in China’s past, especially the Boxer protocols, plays a role in how Chinese leaders see their place in the world and colors their relations with Western countries. I think one of the way this manifests itself is China’s willingness to look the other direction as Chinese pharmaceutical companies create and ship the necessary ingredients for fentanyl to Mexican cartels. I do not have a window into China’s politburo and I have not formally studied contemporary Chinese culture. I think I’m right but I freely admit that I could be wrong.