In an Ideal Utopian world yes, but in real world it did gave you too much power. Now you can do anything in china against Chinese and no one can raise a finger towards you. But if you think that all western citizens were saints and couldn't have mis abused their rights then we don't have anything to discuss. Its not about superiority or inferiority. Extraterritorial Rights was a form of exploitation. Period. How?? Then what are your views on wangsha anyway.......
Did it? I've certainly seen nothing to support that view. That is simplly incorrect. Straw man. That's your opinion. However it's worth noteing that it was designed to prevent exploitation. You are trying to take a system half out of the real world by looking at the flaws of that system but not looking at the flaws it was designed to protect against. There was a typo. It should have read: "It prevented them from being exploited by other contries people and potentially prevented them from exploiting natives as well". At least in theory if they were accused of a crime they would be liable to prosecution by thier own country. In most cases the court systems of US or European contries were less corrupt than those of "host" nations where such rights were obtained. ?
Just read the law Because you said so Again only because you say so You don't seem to recognize the flaws.. Once again if you don't like a county's law, don't go there (But then how can that country be looted??) rather than imposing your will. No, it certainly didn't. What was there motive in first place?? Why did they went to china?? Irrelevant. You failed to answer the question.
ok, the historian warned you twice. I'm not as patient as he is. Next time I see this thread going side tracked , I'll close it and if needed will give some cooler time to those who come here to pick up fights rather than dicuss in a constructive matter.
What law? We were discussing a principle. In general there seems to be nothing about pillaging the local populace at: Extraterritoriality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But since we are discussing the Boxer rebellion let's look at the specfic cases that apply between the US and China. Others are available in links off of Unequal treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are three relevant treaties (not laws): Treaty of Wanghia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Treaty of Tientsin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Boxer Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia None of them allow private individuals or companies the right to pillage China with impunity. No because there is nothing in the notion of extraterritoriality or the particular treaties that allow it. Indeed if you look at some of the modern cases US law may be more punative than local laws. Who said or implied that "all westerners were saints"? I didn't see anyone on this thread doing so much less myself. That means it fits the definition of a straw man. I think I do. No law or system of laws is perfect and I'll agree that there are indeed problems with extraterritoriality. That doesn't mean that the purpose of it was exploitation indeed in many cases its designed to prevent exploitation. That's one solution although it's not necessarily the best for the majority of people either in or outside the country. There was no single motive for Europeans visiting China and I'm not sure it's relevant in any case. Was it? Why? and what question? If I missworded something and then corrected myself are you saying the correction is irrelevant? Indeed if the meaning changes significantly any question related to it is irrelevant.