Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Forced Globalisation - Case Study: China

The First Opium War

  • 1839-1842: China attempts to ban the importation of opium.
  • Britain, who relied on Chinese consumption of the opium it grew in India, respond with war.
  • 1842 the Treaty of Nanking saw China forced to concede Hong Kong and five ports to the British.
  • France and the United States gain treaty ports on the same terms as the British.
  • China's antiquated military was no match for European imperialism.
  • 1843 saw Britain gain 'favoured nation' status with China.

The Second Opium War

  • 1856-1860: China was an isolationist country - it resisted trade with other countries. Europeans, who consumed large amounts of Chinese goods (and had done for centuries) forced China to open up to the rest of the world. The Opium Wars were a part of that process.
  • Second Opium War began because of an alleged insult to the British flag.
  • France joins with the British to attack China.
  • The United States also acted militarily against China, though not in cooperation with the British and French.
  • Britain destroys the Forbidden City - a crime against human dignity.
  • British, French, and Russians gained a permanent diplomatic in Beijing; China had to pay reparations; the opium trade was legalised; Christian rights guaranteed.

Implications of Globalisation and the Capitalistic Ethos

Free Trade

Locking Down the Global Economy

Some Characteristics of Mercantilism

Some Framing Thoughts

Mother, should I trust the government?

Capitalism's Seed

  • Smith's ideas changed how people thought about the consequences of trade; changed how people thought about the exchange of goods and services which had become so important by the end of the early modern period.
  • His ideas were applied unevenly and inconsistently over the course of the 19th century.
  • Protectionist and exclusive approaches to global trade were still applied, encouraging the European imperial project rather than restraining it.
  • Unlike Mercantilism, capitalism does not see the economy as limited; rather it sees wealth as potentially unlimited.
  • Mercantilism reliant upon the hording of precious metals; trade should result in their accumulation - more precious metal = more economic success.
  • Smith challenged this notion, arguing that trade could be beneficial to ALL.
  • According to Mercantilism there were winners and losers in every trade. According to Smith, free trade could result in everyone winning.
  • Under a free market, some industries in some countries would fail. But, according to this theory, that was fine as it would encourage specialisation in other areas, allowing for the lost industry to be replaced with one which increased the amount of wealth in a country.
  • Specialisation of labour is a theme which takes us right back to the consumer revolution - specialisation didn't happen because Smith said it should; he was observing a phenomenon which had been ongoing throughout the Atlantic World.
  • But that realisation was important. Think about when the Wealth of Nations was published (1776). It's the same year America would declare its independence, a move partly inspired by the Enlightenment mentioned all the way back in slide one.
  • Smith's growing awareness of how the world actually worked was part of an intellectual wave sweeping through the Atlantic World. It would change how American colonists saw themselves, how various peoples understood the economy, and would lead to radical changes in France at the close of the 18th century.
  • The globalisation process is a contested space - and it has been since the start. Who gets to control it? Whose interests should it serve? Should nationalism give way to a new, global identity?
  • The inaccurately titled "Little England" movement rejected the logic that Britain should possess overseas colonies.
  • Rejected British military interventions.
  • Value of trade with the United States - not a British colony.
  • Rejected British military interventions.
  • Capitalism also implied a need to move away from war as a means of states interacting.
  • If trade meant that everyone won, why manufacture weapons and fight another country? Why not trade with them instead and increase wealth in that way?
  • This idea is still not fully rooted in today's world...but it is much closer than it was on the eve of World War I...
  • Capitalism, and the idea of mutually beneficial trade, presents a huge ideological challenge to the warhawks...
  • But it didn't exactly take hold...
  • And speaking of things not taking hold...the 1860 Anglo-French treaty was a big step towards free trade between the nations.
  • But the French stepped back from it in 1892 with the Méline tariff
  • High tariffs to protect industry and ensure trading partnerships.
  • Building overseas colonies.
  • Forbidding colonies from trading with foreign competition.
  • Monopolising markets by channeling goods through certain ports only.
  • Banning the export of gold and silver.
  • Forbidding trade from being carried on foreign ships.
  • 19th century saw governments attempting to control the global economy and secure markets for its goods by establishing overseas empires - colonies were ideal trading partners.
  • Mercantilism: the pre-capitalist understanding of the economy which predominated in Europe.
  • Dominated the Atlantic World (16th-18th centuries) but, in spite of the emergence of modern capitalistic ideas, continued to play a role in the 19th century global economy.
  • Mercantilism believed that increasing wealth was about the accumulation of precious metals.
  • Tariffs were commonly used to protect industries in a country, guaranteeing them a market.
  • In contrast, under a capitalist system, industries can and should be allowed to fail - governments should not protect them.
  • Luckily for the bankers, we still don't entirely buy into that...no matter what any government says to the contrary. A bail out is antithetical to capitalism. That they had to occur thus tells us...something.
  • Identity, in whatever form it takes, encourages people to think in terms of homogenisation; it encourages people to see the group(s) in which they identify as largely uniform, united by similarity.
  • It creates a framework in which people look for, and find, commonality. This can lead them to miss, or misunderstand, significant differences within these groups.
  • Group identities are simultaneously frameworks for inclusion and frameworks for exclusion - regardless of how politicians choose to spin it.
  • Question - is nationalism compatible with the globalising process? Will it naturally push back at the process? Should it?

Mercantilism in one image

The Birth of Capitalism

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi