Imperialism in China

...

Although he directly answers to each proposition his opposing school has presented, his distorted interpretations of his evidence and indirect responses to the propositions are his main flaws. He blames the drain of wealth in China on the low national debt per capita and foreign trade per capita.[30] He explains that the net drain of wealth is insignificant because “when the total amount of the outflow, when measured the massive body of the Chinese economy.”[31] However this isn’t a counter argument to the assertion that drain of wealth is caused by imperialism. He avoids responding to the question by simply calling it insignificant. Another instance of an indirect response is when he attempts to counter the proposition that foreign firms adversely affected the Chinese native firms. He does not provide a string of logic to counter argue that proposition and instead, he gives a piece of evidence and concludes that “there is no evidence that Chinese firms were more adversely affected by these conditions than foreign firms.”[32]

Moreover, he provides the evidence “foreign firms were dominant in banking, foreign trade, coal mining, cotton weaving, cigarettes and electricity.”[33] He complements this piece of evidence with “Chinese-owned plants accounted for 78% of factory output in China proper in 1922.”[34] He concludes that foreign dominance didn’t stifle the Chinese economy. However, banking, foreign trade, coal mining, cotton weaving, cigarettes and electricity are the main economic sectors and are most likely to shape a country’s economic climate. 78% of factory output can’t be compared to the massive output produced by the main sectors aforementioned. Therefore it is a false conclusion to make, and suggests that Nathan misuses this piece of evidence to make the conclusion he wishes to deduce. Another instance where Nathan misuses his evidence is where he provided the moral ugliness of foreign intervention by describing the six institutions at the beginning of his essay.[35] This weakens his later arguments by appearing to concede to these negative impacts, moreover the significance of these impacts undermines the arguments he makes later – which are assertions that the impacts are either insignificant or have no evidence.

Esherick, however, produces a more crystalized and well-rounded argument, which Nathan has failed to do. First and foremost, Esherick uses the correct evidence to validate his arguments. For instance, he provides statistics to show that not only did “exports of extractive commodities” decrease after foreign trade, but “exports of manufactures” also decreased.[36] Hence he explains and concludes that, “In effect, China’s foreign trade was increasingly conforming to that pattern so common to underdeveloped nations: she was exporting products the demand for which is relatively inelastic and likely to fall as manufactured substitutes are developed.”[37] Esherick states, “the key sectors of mining and transportation were almost an exclusive foreign preserve.”[38] He proves his statement with statistical evidence: “foreign capital controlled 93% of China’s railways……”[39] With this he shows that effects of foreign corporations and investments on native corporations are indeed significant. His example on the “Japanese loans to the Hanyehping Coal and Iron Company”[40] proves his point “in general, foreign financial interests loaned substantial sums to Chinese business enterprises only when their object was to gain control of the enterprise.”[41] Concluding his economic arguments, he gives statistical evidence that “net capital flow was not to but from China.” – “the entire period 1902-1930, the inflow/outflow ration was 0.57” – a strong piece of evidence that counters Nathan’s argument on the economic benefits.

Unlike Nathan who mainly focuses on the economic aspect, Esherick shows that imperialism is a “total system.”[42] He introduces the idea of extraterritoriality and causality between the “perpetuation of political weakness”[43] after foreign presence and sovereignty. He explains that “extraterritoriality and treaty ports created the conditions for an indirect attack on native Chinese industries by channeling elsewhere the developmental capital needed by those Chinese enterprises.”[44] Esherick concludes his political arguments with, “While the coexistence, claimed by the apologists, of domestic and foreign industry in China was at least theoretically possible, the coexistence of a strong sovereign China and a foreign presence over which she has no jurisdiction or control was a logical impossibility.”[45] He proceeds to prove that “foreign restrictions on China’s sovereignty were such that the government was often totally powerless to prevent such outbreaks of popular discontent.”[46] Esherick combines the previous two aspects together and presents the societal effects of the two in his conclusion, which included, “opium enhanced political corruption and moral decay; the Christianity threatened the values and the status of the gentry; and the yarn deprived handicraft spinners of their livelihood.”[47]

Overall, Nathan succeeds in picking his evidence well to effectively support his arguments, showing the interconnection between the three aspects, and drawing links between one effect and another. However, one flaw of his arguments is his tendency to use strong words and phrases to exaggerate the Harvard School’s claims. Most evidently, he infers that the Harvard school is implying that “the anti-imperialism of both the KMT and the CCP was thus shortsighted – the result of a failure to understand the beneficent inevitability of Western-type modernization.”[48] However, this is not a direct quote from someone of the Harvard school; but a statement he deduces from what he has read – therefore it may not be accurate.

In conclusion, Joseph Esherick’s arguments are more convincing for two main reasons: good usage of evidence and well-rounded arguments, hence creating a more crystalized piece. Esherick backs up his arguments with carefully picked evidence that obviously provides credence to his arguments, while Nathan tends to distort the nature of his evidence but changing the interpretation of them in order to support his arguments. While Esherick notices the existence of impacts on three aspects of Chinese history – economic, political, and social, Nathan focuses the majority of his essay on economic arguments, which seems to support his stance better than the other two aspects would. Therefore Nathan intentionally avoids using arguments that may demonstrate aspects of the situation that may undermine his stance; or, he interprets the evidence in a way that may support his arguments. Most importantly, Esherick provides a well-rounded