作者:
fw190a (las)
2022-01-04 19:52:55※ 引述《plamc (普蘭可)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《revanchist (revanchist)》之銘言：
: : 此問題換另一個表述方式:
: : 英國如何才不會對華輸入鴨片?
: : 答案是不可能.
: 你真的都不聽別人講捏
: 史實是
: 0.本來英國就沒有想幫忙走私鴉片商，好好講根本沒事，是林則徐耍官威激怒義律
: 你不要又來說什麼滿清的錯，我前面已經說n次，去追究死人骨頭有錯根本智障
: 這只是敘述事件經過而已
沒有主動幫，但實際上幫了，兩者都和輸入鴉片不矛盾。
戰爭開打前，鴉片走私輸入，打完繼續輸入。
人家在講實質上的輸入問題，
你在回應英國政府沒想幫，根本沒回應到點上，
營造個英國政府很好說話，滿清官員低能搞事的氛圍。
後者大家或許沒啥意見，問題是前者到底有多少出於你幻想?
你這邊提出好好講沒事，是說放棄要求就能避免戰爭。
還是英國會真的配合禁止鴉片?
有什麼證據呢?
我倒是看到蠻多義律請求本國指示和權力都石沉大海。
~~
另一派死人描述的事情經過
Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). Speaking in the year
1840, about the Chinese War, the right hon. Gentleman said— They gave you
notice to abandon your contraband trade. When they found that you would not,
they had a right to drive you from their coasts, on account of your obstinacy
in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic. You allowed your agent
to aid and abet those who were concerned in carrying on that trade; and I do
not know how it can be urged as a crime against the Chinese that they refused
provisions to those who refused obedience to their laws whilst residing
within their territories.
1840年 議員的說法:
他們給過聲明停止違禁品貿易，並且在發現不停止後有權驅逐人，
因為你們固執的堅持罪惡的交易。
你讓你的手下幫助並助長那些參與交易者。
而我不知道，不提供口糧給拒絕遵從法律者卻居於其境內者，
憑什麼被算成中國的錯。
: 1.鴉片戰爭後簽南京條約，英國也沒要求鴉片合法化
1889年的議員試圖提議禁止鴉片提出的整理:
We had no right to go to war on such a ground, but unhappily we did go to war
and bombarded Canton and many other defenceless towns, and in the end
compelled the Chinese to pay to the smuggling traders an indemnity for the
opium destroyed. Still, we could not get them to legalize the trade.
我們沒有合理基礎開戰，但還是打了，
並且讓中國人賠償那些走私商人，
但仍然無法讓它們合法化鴉片貿易。
Ambassador, Sir H. Pottinger, tried it, and what was the noble reply made to
him by the Chinese Emperor? He said— It is true, I cannot prevent the
introduction of the flowing poison. Gain-seeking and corrupt men will, for
profit and sensuality, defeat my wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive
a revenue from the vice and misery of my people.
英國大使有要求，只是被皇帝拒絕了。
This was during the Government of Lord Palmerston. In this war the Chinese
were again defeated, the capital of China was taken, and the Chinese
compelled at the point of the bayonet to legalize the trade in opium under
the Treaty of Tientsin. Therefore, it was not till we had fought two
successful wars that we were enabled to bring about that result.
通過第二場戰爭，打到首都，才成功用武力讓中國同意鴉片合法
I said that the Treaty of Tientsin legalized the trade in opium. But, after
a few years, the opium merchants began to complain that local dues were
placed upon opium in the interior, so high as to somewhat restrict the trade.
The Treaty of Tientsin, it appears, only provided for an Import Duty payable
at the Customs. And so they began, backed up by the Indian Government, to
agitate that we should urge upon China to abolish these inland imposts so as
to make it easier for opium to get up the country. And so we had the Chefoo
Convention in 1876, providing that there should be no "likin" imposts in the
interior, but that a certain fixed duty should be paid at the port in
addition to the Foreign Import Duty. This Chefoo Convention was not
considered to be sufficiently favourable to British trade by the Home
Government, and it remained unratified for no less than nine years. All that
time our Government continued to urge upon China more favourable terms. At
last the ratification was completed in the year 1885.
天津條約後，鴉片商人很快要求進一步調整內地的釐金。
在煙台條約中多年談判才得到英國滿意的結果。
Sir Thomas Wade, our Ambassador at Pekin, who wrote
the following despatch to the British Government in 1868:— We are generally
prone to forget that the footing we have in China has been obtained by force,
and by force alone, and that, unwarlike and unenergetic as we hold the
Chinese to be, it is in reality to the fear of force alone that we are
indebted for the safety we enjoy at certain points accessible to our force.…
Yet nothing that has been gained, it must be remembered, was received from
the free-will of the Chinese; more, the concessions made to us from time to
time have been, from first to last, extorted against the conscience of the
nation; in defiance, that is to say, of the moral convictions of its educated
men; not merely of the office-holders, whom we call mandarins, and who are
numerically but a small proportion of the educated class, but of the millions
who are saturated with a knowledge of the history and philosophy of their
country. To these, as a rule, the very extension of our trade must appear
politically, or what is in China the same thing, morally wrong: and the story
of foreign intercourse during the last 30 years can have had no effect but to
confirm them in their opinion.
1868年駐北京大使寫:我們很容易忘了我們獲取的一切都是透過武力，而非自願。
這種強迫違背了國家的良心，不只是對官員/知識階層，
還有百萬計的受到歷史知識與文化影響的大眾，
因此，我們的貿易擴展(鴉片?)對我們和對中國都一樣，是政治上/道德上錯誤的。
而當地過去30年來與外國的交流故事，只會強化這種意見。
: 2.1907年英國簽約協助滿清消除鴉片
: 1860年北京條約到1907年也才47年，不到半世紀，在歷史尺度上是很短的時間
: 你要搞大歷史敘述，請先記得大歷史看的是長時間的趨勢
: 所以英國明明沒有要賣鴉片在先，有幫忙除鴉片在後，你說不可能
(突然發現你是用1860開始算，有點不知所謂。
既不是用鴉片戰爭也不是天津條約)
你是當英國內部從鴉片得利的人都不會做事嗎?
本來就算無論道德，單從現實分析，
也是需要推算各方的利益與動機。
從，沒有要賣但你不能阻止我賣。
到你必須合法讓我賣，
最後不賺錢了，出於道德理由也不要賣了。
這樣的思路轉折明明是巨大的，
想釐清這問題卻在這上面簡化還討論什麼。
我還是很好奇你說的"可能"是什麼東西。
如果你是想說等他賺個67年1840~1907，就會停了，
反正大歷史來看也沒多久。
那我只覺得被當白痴耍。
: 阿你自己愛羞辱滿清、愛自己辱華，是你家的事，但幻想之前先顧一下史實如何?
有些東西本來就很難證明。或者有時當作聽故事就算了，
但既然你說史實了，你要不要證實一下你的下列史實?
中國民眾在鴉片戰爭到英法聯軍前，對外國勢力不痛不癢
義律被激怒導致鴉片戰爭
鴉片戰爭不打英國就會主動禁止鴉片?