Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Boxer Rebellion

Discussion in 'Military History' started by GRW, Sep 26, 2010.

  1. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.......
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
    ?
     
  3. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just read the law

    Because you said so :rolleyes:

    Again only because you say so :rolleyes:

    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.
     
  4. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    20,815
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Gentlemen,
    Keep it civil.
     
  5. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,984
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    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.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     

Share This Page