In many ways, the triangle of trade was very similar to the opium trade. Both relied of some sort of dependence between nations of the world. While the triangle of trade was much more of a mutual need - each country had something they needed and something to give to another country - the opium trade was very much a one way deal. The British hooked China on opium, creating a dependence so that it would have a constant supply of money coming in. Because it wasn't reciprocal, China grew greatly indebted, which contributed to its decline.
Although I don't know a lot about current events, I would guess that there are similarities between the opium trade and the U.S.'s dependence on oil. All of our cars run on it, and it has become a natural and necessary part of our lives to get around. However, because we need it so much, we are forced to import it from other countries. Countries with natural supplies of oil really benefit from this because they recognize our dependence on it. There is a way out, but we have become so ingrained in this way of life that it requires a drastic change to free ourselves from our addiction to oil while we funnel our money into other countries.
Your post brought up an interesting view of the issue that I hadn't thought of before; that dependancy can oftentimes be a mutual thing. Though you addressed this in your post, talking about it from Britain's point of view, but there is something there. Perhaps you could look at it as an income situation. As in a private household, a nation must make money to increase stability. Though China was obviously much more dependant upon England, is it also possible that Britain needed the money as much as China needed the drug? Certainly not so extremely, but maybe Britain would not be the same country it is today if the opium trade had never happened. In any case, cool post - it is truly thought-provoking.
ReplyDelete