The Chinese Opium Wars

Uncovering the mechanisms behind opium’s role in British imperialism and nationalism requires a deeper understanding of opium’s functions. Opium is a pharmakon, a synthetically derived chemical substance capable of acting as both a remedy and a poison. Indeed, the dynamics of opium’s physiological and psychological impacts on the human body is what fueled British imperialism in the 19th century and the subsequent bolstering of British nationalism. 

The following excerpt is from an op-ed titled “Confessions of an English Opium-Eater” that was published by Thomas De Quincey in London Magazine regarding his introduction to the dangerously addictive chemical compound. 

“I awoke with excruciating rheumatic pains of the head and face, from which I had hardly any respite for about twenty days.  On the twenty-first day I think it was, and on a Sunday, that I went out into the streets, rather to run away, if possible, from my torments, than with any distinct purpose.  By accident I met a college acquaintance, who recommended opium.  Opium! dread agent of unimaginable pleasure and pain!” (De Quincey, 1821).

     The fact that in the early 1800s, opium was highly revered for suppression of bodily pain is particularly noteworthy.  The use of the phrase “dread agent” to describe the drug originates from Old English where the word “dread” was used as a transitive verb and meant to “venerate” or to “regard with awe or reverence” under the condition of fear (Dread, 1900). In other words,  dread’s use to describe opium as a substance of “unimaginable” effects alludes to the idea that humans were unable to comprehend the scope of opium’s impact on the human body, as if the drug was viewed in a spiritual manner. 

The fact that opium had capabilities of reducing pain to an extent never previously seen  was indisputable, but the frame of mind in which it was viewed led to the outcomes caused by Britain exploiting China through colonization and opium-addiction induced leverage. By looking at two sources, Chinese Account of the Opium War and The Medical Aspect of the Opium Question, we can view how the perception and use of opium differed between Britain itself and the way that Britain utilized opium abroad. 

(Marshal 3) Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3psN0Vx

Between these two sources—Chinese Account of the Opium War and The Medical Aspect of the Opium Question—opium can be viewed through two separate lenses. First, we can look at opium as an addictive substance, and moreover, a tool for political power and control, as represented in Chinese Account of the Opium War. This source is from the perspective of a contemporary Chinese citizen, and translated later into English. It documents his experiences and observations from the beginning to the climax of the Opium Wars in China. The Medical Aspect of the Opium Question, however, focuses less on the political aspects of opium in China, and more on its addictive qualities, and how those affect opium’s use as a medicinal remedy. To the Chinese, opium can be thought of as an addictive substance capable of being used by foreign powers to exert control; to the British medical community, opium is a medical substance with miraculous properties in relieving pain and cough, with the unfortunate side effect of potential addiction. These two primary sources will be the foundation for comparing opium as a political tool versus as a medicine. A secondary source, Opium Evil or Opium Essential?: The Geopolitics of Drug Control from 1909-1961 will also be useful here, as it provides a formula for looking at the geopolitics of opium in conjunction with its medical and illicit uses. 

In Chinese Account of the Opium War, we are given a glimpse into the tactics employed by the British in their pseudo-colonization of mainland China. This begins with the British motivation for weaponizing opium during this period: “It had previously been a rule that no silver was to go out of the country [...] but it gradually came to pass that a balance of silver had to be annually made up on the Chinese side” (Parker 3). Here, opium is connected to silver bullion and profit, and it is made clear that the purpose of British hegemony over the opium trade in China was one of profit motivation, as is typical of imperialism. We are then given a glimpse into the civil unrest caused by British control of opium, and the result of resistance to British rule by Chinese military forces: “Towards the end of June, fifteen British men-of-war, including three steamers, assembled [...] and from that point on the English did not venture again into port” (Parker 15). Here, the Chinese rally to fight off the British, and successfully expel them from the port. British hegemony of course eventually wins, but most relevant here is the association between opium and political and military power.

Compared to the Chinese perspective, the British perspective of opium in The Medical Aspect of the Opium Question is one of strict medical use, with unfortunate side effects on the patients it affects. Along with outlining the medical uses of opium—specifically its uses in the relief of pain and symptoms such as cough—much of this source is dedicated to outlining the side effects of regular opium use, using individuals addicted to opium in China as its primary case studies. For example, the author states that, “I would deliberately warn my patients who were being treated by remedies used at home that, if within fourteen days or three weeks they did not begin to put on flesh, they were deceiving me” (Society for the Suppression of the Opioid Trade, 10). In this excerpt, the author, presumably a doctor, is discussing treating opium addicts, and using their emaciation as an indicator for whether or not they have truly quit using opium. The difference in language when discussing opium in this passage compared to the Chinese account of the Opium Wars is vast: the British account uses medical terminology and language, describing opium as as much a remedy as it is an addictive drug; the Chinese account describes opium not only as an addictive substance, but as an exploitable force for political power and colonization. While the doctor describes opium’s effect on the living person, the Chinese account describes opium in terms of its societal impact and resulting body count. 

Opium Evil or Opium Essential? asks us to consider opium and opioids more generally not only in terms of their geopolitics or their medicinal uses, but rather how their medicinal uses and side effects ultimately shape the geopolitics of opioids. The author calls this geonarcotics, the idea that a narcotic is best understood not only in terms of its physical effects, but also its perception, regulation, reputation, and in the context of the society in which it exists. This is particularly useful when looking at opium as a compound history. Opium is simultaneously a drug and a public policy issue—it is simultaneously a great remedy to many humans, and the cause of great suffering to others. Opium’s effects are reflective of the society in which it exists: it exposes the inherent biases, systemic injustices, and underserved populations of any particular area. At the same time, the setting in which opium exists is very important. In China during the nineteenth century, opium was a narcotic, but also a tool for colonialism and power; in Britain during the same time, opium was a drug to remedy pain, and an object of study. This exposes a potential dichotomy in how opioids can be viewed in the US, even in similar regions, but divided by social class instead—to some, opioids are a necessary remedy to get through daily life. To others, they are addictive substances discovered through the predatory advertisements of corporations seeking profits. 

In order to understand the significance of opioids in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is helpful to think of opioids in terms of an extension of colonialism, as outlined by Liboiron in their piece, Pollution is Colonialism. Though Liboroin’s argument pertains to pollution and land rights, their analysis of the ways in which colonialism factors into aspects of a society as fundamental of our understanding of land helps to contextualize the role of opioids in British exploitation of China (Liboiron 12). Like pollution, opium is not inherently a force of colonialism. Indeed, using opium as a means of exploitation allowed the British to deny outright imperialism despite effectively draining wealth from mainland China. As Liboiron argues, any action or substance with potentially deleterious effects on a population or area can be thought of as colonial when it exists or originates from a society built upon colonial foundations (Liboiron 24). Considering the use of opium as outlined by E.H. Parker, understanding the connection between colonialism and opioids is significant in tracing their early history to the present opioid crisis.