鴉片戰爭神話與真實

简短的回答。

https://www.quora.com/search?q=Opium%20war

政治上在其他地方讨论得很好，而且明显是坏事。在其他领域，其影响和严重性就不那么明确了，而且受到具有不同议程的人的不同看法的影响。

长答案

这个问题没有具体说到哪些方面。鸦片的影响可以从多个方面来看，其中大部分是相互关联的。

鸦片的影响可以细分为（此清单并不详尽）。

政治影响

经济影响

健康方面

社会影响

还有直接、间接和 "宣传/意识形态 "的影响。

有时，一个事件的 "宣传/意识形态效应 "可能比 "实际 "意义更重要。

历史往往是有选择性的--BBC有一个很好的历史系列 "我们忘记记住的事情"，

它表明英国历史上的一些事情广为人知

（往往是因为它们是一些国家神话的一部分），

而其他重要的部分只有历史学家知道，

而它们的实际影响比众所周知的部分大得多。

在我看来，

鸦片对中国的真正影响永远不会被知道。

这是因为仍然存在重大的不确定性，我将对此进行详细说明。

政治

在政治上，鸦片是英中战争的一个重要因素，在英国通常被称为 "鸦片战争"。大多数评论家认为，鸦片是导致第一次鸦片战争的直接原因。

(并非所有人都同意，例如见：http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ces/publications/docs/pdfs/Gelbert136.pdf，例如)

第一次战争再次强调了清政府的弱点和能力。(已经受到人口和经济问题的困扰，此外还有在缅甸等地的军事失败。一些作者还说，皇家海军在镇压海生海盗方面的影响，使海盗们沿河而上，在中国境内挑起祸端。

无论怎样，清政府的解体在中短期内对中国来说都是一场灾难，尤其是外国势力的干预加剧了这种灾难。

经济方面

19世纪初，鸦片在中国被作为货币使用。它很受欢迎，因为它比铜的替代品更轻。它也可以作为一种投资，因为它保存得很好，而且价格不同。

尽管还有其他因素，但鸦片的持续经济效应已被Wong证明是第二次战争的一个重要因素。资料来源：Wong Deadly Dreams- Opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War，剑桥（1998）。

经济因素有很大的不确定性。鸦片的进口量有据可查，但中国国内的产量却不太清楚。从鸦片价格中可以推断出一些信息。从1800年左右到1870年左右，国内生产可能一直占主导地位。

进口的鸦片减少了清政府的白银储备，从而损害了清政府的利益。具体性质存在很大的不确定性--见Lovell《鸦片战争》（2011）第一章。第二次鸦片战争后，尽管鸦片进口量增加，但清朝的金银储备却有所增加。这可能是墨西哥革命的影响平息后，墨西哥的白银产量增加的结果。

另一方面，国内鸦片生产可能有经济效益；当然，中国农民非常不愿意放弃鸦片生产。鸦片作为一种硬通货和经济作物，很受欢迎。在1900年以后的时期，几乎所有的中国鸦片都是在国内生产的。中国政府抨击帝国主义列强的毒品供应，同时依靠鸦片的税收来获得收入。

(来源：《中国共产党革命新视角》（1995年）第263-298页。陳永发《红日下的罂粟花》，载于《中国共产主义革命新视角》（1995年）第263-298页），其中指出

健康与社会

健康和社会方面既不确定又有争议。即使在今天，任何关于麻醉品的讨论都带有强烈的政治色彩。2009年，英国毒品科学顾问大卫-纳特（David Nutt）教授说，酒精和烟草比迷幻药、摇头丸和大麻更危险，他被解雇了，因为这个观点与政府在这个问题上的想法不一致。

健康--个人

谈到鸦片对健康和社会的影响，有一系列观点，许多观点截然相反。在鸦片战争的时候。

鸦片供应商（雅尔丁和马西森）说他们几乎没有看到有害的影响（好吧，他们会的，他们几乎不可能说他们在卖毒药！）。

传教士说，鸦片造成了巨大的社会和健康影响，他们把吸食者描述为可怜的堕落的躯壳，"四肢瘦弱，步履蹒跚，面色苍白等等"--但他们会的，不是吗，他们在呼吁募捐！)

辩论持续到今天。有争议的历史学家迪科特指出，除了便秘之外，没有多少证据表明鸦片有有害的医疗作用，吸食鸦片的人寿命很长。他还认为，供应给中国的印度种植的鸦片的吗啡含量远远低于当时英国许多人消费的土耳其鸦片的含量。有资料显示，1900年美国的鸦片成瘾者人数在10万至20万之间。

社会健康

关于中国有多少鸦片使用者，有很多不确定因素。

剑桥中国史》第178-181页讨论了这个问题，并给出了一个广泛的数值--19世纪末为200-3000万。

许多评论家指出，鸦片的使用如何损害了中国的健康和社会。

然而，最近的学术观点已经发生了变化。

周迅博士、Lars Laamann博士和Frank Dikotter教授Narcotic Culture- A History of Drugs in China（2016）反驳了鸦片导致严重健康和社会影响的观点。见Dikotter 2003年的演讲全文： 。

http://frankdikotter.com/publications/the_myth_of_opium.pdf

[Dikotter是伦敦大学非洲和东方研究学院的荷兰教授]。

Dikotter进一步指出，在英国，社会上的鸦片消费并不比酒精消费差（这里有Nutt教授的影子！）。他列举了中国的鸦片馆，认为它们很干净，设备齐全，经营良好，并且有一批值得尊敬的顾客。

Dikotter指出，鸦片的危险在20世纪被用作民族主义的集结点。他认为，在鸦片问题上，由于取缔鸦片使用者的影响，"治疗比疾病更糟糕"。

迪科特还讨论了麻醉品在西方是如何被使用和禁止的（直到20世纪，它们在英国和美国都是合法和广泛使用的），指出了想要垄断毒品的医疗机构的作用。

这一观点与一般的趋势相反，后者暗示中国的鸦片使用就像《火车头》中的海洛因成瘾者角色那样生活。

[在我看来，我很难相信鸦片消费造成的问题和迪科特的观点一样少，而且他对事情进行了反药物管制。其他评论家同意K.L> Lodwick说："《麻醉文化》似乎是修正主义历史中的一种，最近有几个修正主义历史旨在说服我们，帝国主义并不是那么糟糕，或者至少我们不应该把他们造成的社会问题归咎于帝国主义，在这种情况下，是那些从贸易中发了大财的鸦片商人。］

如果迪科特等人的观点让人不舒服，请阅读全文，并责备作者而不是我！"。同样，如果你认为这很有趣，所有的工作都是由其他人完成的。

我希望这个概述能激发一些思考。

编辑--我注意到弗兰克-迪科特现在是香港大学的教务主任，所以他以前的工作不可能是完全的垃圾，因为他得到了另一份工作!

但是，也许我对历史任命的工作方式太天真了!

Politically well discussed elsewhere and plainly bad. In other areas the impact and its severity are just less clear, and subject to diverse views from people with diverse agendas.

Long Answer

The question is not specific as to which aspects. The effects of opium can be looked at from a variety of aspects, most of which are inter-linked.

The effects of opium can be broken down, (this list is not exhaustive) into:

 Political

 Economic

 Health

 Social

There are also direct, indirect and "publicity/ideology" effects. Sometimes the "publicity/ideology effect" of an event can dominate over the "physical “ significance.

History is often selective- there is an excellent BBC History Series "Things we forgot to remember" that shows that some things in British history are widely known (often because they are part of some national mythology) whereas other important parts are well known only to historians, whereas there actual impact was much greater than the well-known parts.

The true effect of opium on China will never be known, in my view. This is because there remain significant uncertainties which upon which I shall enlarge.

Political

Politically, opium was a significant factor in the Anglo Chinese wars, often known in Britain as the "Opium Wars" . It acted as the immediate cause of the first opium war according to most commentators

(Not everyone agrees see, for example: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ces/publications/docs/pdfs/Gelbert136.pdf, for example)

The first war re-emphasized the weakness of the Qing government and its capabilities. (already suffering from demographic and economic problems, in addition to military defeats such as in Burma. Some authors have also stated that the impact of the Royal Navy in suppressing sea-born piracy moved the pirates up river to sow mischief within China.

Either way, the disintegration of the Qing Government was a disaster for China in the short to medium term, especially in the way it was exacerbated by the intervention of foreign powers.

Economic

At the beginning of the 19th Century, opium was used as currency in China. It was popular as it was lighter than the alternative of copper. It could also be an investment as it kept well and varied in price,

The ongoing economic effect of opium has been shown by Wong to have been an strong factor in the second war, albeit there were other factors. Source Wong Deadly Dreams- Opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War, Cambridge (1998).

Economic factors are subject to significant uncertainties. The amount of opium imported is well documented, but the domestic Chinese production is less clear. Some information can be inferred from the opium price. Domestic production probably dominated from up to about 1800 and from about 1870.

Imported opium damaged the Qing Government by reducing its reserves of silver. There are significant uncertainties in the exact nature- see Lovell ‘The Opium War (2011) Chapter 1. After the second opium war, Qing bullion reserved increased, in spite of increased importation of opium. This was probably a result of increase in the silver production from Mexico after the impact of the revolution there had calmed down.

On the other hand, domestic opium production probably had economic benefits; certainly Chinese farmers were very unwilling to give up its production. Opium was popular as a means of hard currency as well as a cash crop. During the period after about 1900, nearly all the Chinese opium was home-produced. The Chinese government railed against supply of the drug by the Imperialist powers, whilst relying on taxes paid on opium for revenue.

(Source: Ch'en Yung-fa 'The Blooming Poppy Under the Red Sun' in New Perspectives on the Chinese Communist Revolution (1995) pages 263-298) which states that

Health and Social

The Health and Social aspects are both uncertain and controversial. Even today, any discussion of narcotics is strongly politically loaded. When UK drug scientific advisor Prof David Nutt stated that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than LSD, Ecstasy and cannabis in 2009, he was sacked because this view did not line up with Government thinking on the matter.

Health- Individual

When it comes to the impact of opium on health and society, there are a range of views, many diametrically opposite. At the time of the opium wars,

 the opium suppliers (Jardine and Matheson said they had hardly seen harmful effects (well, they would wouldn't they- they were hardly likely to say they were selling poison!)

 the Missionaries said opium was causing a huge social and health impact, describing its users as sorry debased shells of human beings "lank and shrivelled limbs, tottering gait, sallow visage etc"- *but they would, wouldn't they, they were appealing for funds!)

The debate continues to this day. Controversial historian Dikotter states that, except for constipation, there is not much evidence of the harmful medical effects of opium, with opium users leading long lives. He also argues that the morphine content of the Indian grown opium supplied to China was much lower than that of the Turkish opium- consumed by so many in the UK at the time. Sources give the number of opium addicts in the USA in 1900 at between 100,000 and 200,000.

Societal Health

There is a lot of uncertainty about how many opium users there were in China.

The Cambridge History of China page 178-181 discusses this and gives a wide range of values- ranging from 2-30 million in the late 19th century

Many commentators have stated how the use of opium damaged China's health and society.

However, there have been changes in recent academic views.

Dr Xun Zhou, Dr Lars Laamann and Prof Frank Dikotter Narcotic Culture- A History of Drugs in China (2016) have countered the idea of opium leading to severe health and social impacts. see Dikotter's 2003 lecture in full at :

http://frankdikotter.com/publications/the_myth_of_opium.pdf

[Dikotter is a Dutch Professor of the School of African and Oriental Studies at the University of London].

Dikotter further states that socially opium was no worse than alcohol consumption in Britain (shades of Prof Nutt here!). He cites Chinese Opium Dens as being clean, well furnished, well run and with a respectable clientele.

Dikotter states that dangers of opium were used as a rallying point for nationalism in the 20th century. He is of the view that in the case of opium, "the cure was worse than the disease" owing the impact of clampdowns on opium users.

Dikotter also discusses how narcotics were used then banned in the West (they were both legal and widely used in the UK and USA until the 20th century), pointing to the role of medical authorities wanting a monopoly on drugs.

This view goes against the general trend which implies that Chinese opium uses were living like the heroin addict characters in “Trainspotting”.

[I found it hard to credit that opium consumption caused as few problems as in Dikotter’s view and he puts an anti drug-control spin on things, in my view. Other reviewers agree K.L> Lodwick states “Narcotic Culture appears to be one of the revisionist histories of which there have been several lately that have aimed at convincing us that imperialism wasn't all that bad, or at least that we should not blame the imperialists, in this case the opium traders who made vast fortunes from the trade, for the social problems they created.]

If the view of Dikotter et al is uncomfortable, read the full article and blame the authors and not me! Again, if you think this is interesting, all the work was done by others.

I hope this overview stimulates some thinking.

Edit - I noted Frank Dikotter is now a faculty head at the University of Hong Kong, so his previous work can’t have been total bunk as he got another job!

But maybe I am naïve about how history appointments work!

Dikotter指出，鸦片的危险在20世纪被用作民族主义的集结点。他认为，在鸦片问题上，由于取缔鸦片使用者的影响，"治疗比疾病更糟糕"。

迪科特还讨论了麻醉品在西方是如何被使用和禁止的（直到20世纪，它们在英国和美国都是合法和广泛使用的），指出了想要垄断毒品的医疗机构的作用。

这一观点与一般的趋势相反，后者暗示中国的鸦片使用就像《火车头》中的海洛因成瘾者角色那样生活。

[在我看来，我很难相信鸦片消费造成的问题和迪科特的观点一样少，而且他对事情进行了反药物管制。其他评论家同意K.L> Lodwick说："《麻醉文化》似乎是修正主义历史中的一种，最近有几个修正主义历史旨在说服我们，帝国主义并不是那么糟糕，或者至少我们不应该把他们造成的社会问题归咎于帝国主义，在这种情况下，是那些从贸易中发了大财的鸦片商人。］

如果迪科特等人的观点让人不舒服，请阅读全文，并责备作者而不是我！"。同样，如果你认为这很有趣，所有的工作都是由其他人完成的。

我希望这个概述能激发一些思考。

编辑--我注意到弗兰克-迪科特现在是香港大学的教务主任，所以他以前的工作不可能是完全的垃圾，因为他得到了另一份工作!

但是，也许我对历史任命的工作方式太天真了!