Talk:Thirteen Factories

Move suggested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below, although there appears to be agreement that other changes need to be made. Dekimasuよ! 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The scope of this article is much wider that just the Thirteen Hongs, which are sometimes confused with the Chinese firms in this article. I think a move to the name Canton System of Trade would be more appropriate and it has support in the Cambridge History of China.--Amban 14:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an existing Canton System article which covers trading outside 13 Hongs in Guangzhou/Canton. One step up, there is Old China Trade, which covers almost all European and all of China. Both of which are quite underdeveloped and could use alot more contents, pics, references etc. Benjwong 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

For discussion, see User talk:Sirlanz. — LlywelynII 14:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Kindly restore this source

• Fan, F. (2004), British Naturalists in Qing China (PDF), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01143-0.

once it is being used to verify statements in the article. — LlywelynII 14:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Terminology section

I see that the first paragraph has been worked over, with reverts, so I hesitate to jump in, but the present version has problems that I think can be fixed by looking at the sources. Apologies if I missed points covered in the TalkPage discussion here. This is what I foound:

1. Tamura, although convenient, is a high-school text written by a non-specialist. This is fine for non-controversial statements, such as the definition of "factories," but not for controversial ones, such as "Contemporary Chinese often referred to the factories as "barbarian houses."
2. "Barbarian houses" is controversial. Why? Contemporary Chinese obviously did not use the English term, "barbarian." Tamura does not give the Chinese, which is added from a second source, "from the official term (Chinese: 夷; Sidney Lau: yi⁴ for foreigners," which is sourced to "Sub-Prefect of Macao Tseung's Reply to a Petition; Williams, Samuel Wells (1842). Easy Lessons in Chinese. p. 241.. Problem: The word "barbarian" does not appear on that page, indeed a search of the whole book for " barbarian" (here) found but three hits, none of which claims that Yi is "the official term for foriegners," though it was certainly common and customary. Nor would Williams, however learned, be a good source that "barbarian" is the "official" term.
3. The Basu reference note, which gives no page number, in fact argues stronglyagainst translating Yi as "barbarian", for instance: "I wish to argue that the translation of the term Yi as "barbarian" not only is problematic, but also completely occludes the political context in which the word was authorized to receive its currently accepted coherent form of construction and representation." (p. 929) The JAS editor's headnote to Basu's article adds that the case against this translation has been made even more strongly by Lydia Liu, The Clash of Empires.
4. It's not clear that a section on "Terminology" needs to include the term "Ironheaded old rat." The reference does not make clear who nicknamed him nor do we know the reliability of the translation. The note gives a primary source (which is sometimes a problem, sometimes not), but I preserve the text here in case anyone wants to put it back into another part of the article:

"the prominent merchant William Jardine who is nicknamed the Ironheaded old rat..." Palmer, Roundell, 1st Earl of Selborne (1840). Statement of Claims of the British Subjects Interested in Opium Surrendered to Captain Elliot at Canton for the Public Service. Cornhill, London: Pelham, Richardson. p. 128, Memorial of Hew Kew, August 1836.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Cheers in any case ch (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We must begin by not failing to notice that the POV of CWH is stridently outlier. It has been the perception consistently for over 200 years that it was the cultural norm for the Chinese bureaucracy to adopt pejoratives in its official correspondence with foreigners. So CWH is paddling against a very strong tide here. As for the sources, there are imperfections to be sure and, thanks to CWH, we will need to beef them up, and we shall. Watch this space. Meanwhile, while taking a high-handed and snooty-toned approach to editing, credibility is enhanced if niceties of basic grammar and punctuation be observed. sirlanz 14:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have provided Williams' treatment of the use of the two relevant Chinese terms and do so without apology. It is remarkable to read CWH's skepticism about the reliability of Williams. The man was an incredibly gifted Chinese linguist and perspicacious observer of all aspects of life in China at the relevant time. His Tonic and Syllabic dictionaries are towering works in Chinese linguistics, as was his Easy Lessons, albeit less grandly but groundbreaking nonetheless. There may be a better source to rely upon somewhere but how about telling us who that may be, if not CWH him/herself, that is? Williams is unequivocal about the Cantonese (and that is what will have been ringing in the ears of the traders), less plain on the Mandarin (the mode for formal communication).

Nevertheless, a better source is required for "Barbarian houses". I have no access to Tamura but I have no hesitation in accepting CWH's account that it fails to disclose the original Chinese and that is a serious deficiency indeed. More hunting required. If better ground cannot be found, then the whole "barbarian" thing will come out for no established link but, should it stay, then the rest of the explanation/background has its proper place here. And, lastly, CWH might pause for a moment to recognise that the entire factories time was a period of the highest possible tension between China and the West; the "barbarian" tale gives a flavour of the political and social reality of the time, of the antagonism that met the traders there day in day out. sirlanz 15:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, when it is not clear to an editor whether something is needed or not (indeed, anytime the editor is not clear), it is time that editor paused for a moment and considered whether it would be right (or even polite) to just dash in and tear things down. CWH was not sure but had no compunction; not good enough, I say. The no. 1 trader there was described abusively by his opposite numbers, we are told by an academic source, yet CWH seems to want to apply some sort of evidential standard to material to be used on these pages. That will simply take us nowhere. sirlanz 15:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a falsity to suggest, as does CWH here, that the term "barbarian" does not appear in the Reply to a Petition (an official pronouncement at diplomatic level between nations, no less) for it does, repeatedly, in Chinese. The literal meaning of the word - and this is and never has been controversial - is communicated well and most succinctly by the English word "barbarian". The controversy is in whether it should be read as a pejorative or not. The WP page as it stands takes no position on that question at all and thus there can be nothing objectionable in it appearing there. The debate about how to take it ("Should I take this as an insult?") is dealt with handsomely on other WP pages. We have a modern-day perfect exemplar operating in Hong Kong today, 鬼佬 (gwai2lo5) which literally means "ghost/demon fellow". Decades ago, just about everyone (on both sides) thought it offensive; today, much less so, so it can be taken one way or the other, but the words remain what they are. sirlanz 16:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on the comments by sirlanz

First, "If names are incorrect, discourse is difficult" 名不正則言不順 (Confucius, Analects 13.3)

Next, I apologize that I offended. I did not intend to, and can only plead that "tone" is notoriously hard to catch on the internet. On the contrary, I see and honor the extraordinary amount of work that went into the edits in the rest of the article. I would only ask that sirlanz look at WP:BEBOLD, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Please let me know the specific words or actions that were strident, high handed, or snooty, and will specifically withdraw them.

I apologize also that I did not make myself clear on several points. Here is a better attempt.

• The section "Terminology" should concern "terminology." The present section is not a systematic discussion of the terms that a reader might not understand, but random observations that omit terms used in the article (such as hoppo, comprador, sampan) and includes material that does not concern "terminology," such as "the Iron headed old rat."

• The reverted sentence on "factories" is fine, though the diction is stilted ("fiduciaries"?). Tamura remains a WP:TERTIARY, that is, weak source, even for "barbarian houses." You have access to Tamura through the link.

• Removing the links, the sentence reads:

Contemporary Chinese often referred to the factories as "barbarian houses",[2]:104 from the term (Chinese: 夷; Sidney Lau: yi4) used in Chinese officialdom[2]:95-101[3][4] or Cantonese (Chinese: 蕃鬼;Sidney Lau: faan1gwai2) for foreigners at the time[5] and termed one of its most prominent members, William Jardine of Eho Factory (Yee Wo Hong), "the Ironheaded old rat".[6]

What is an ordinary reader to make of this stylistic, typographic, and grammatical mess?

"Contemporary Chinese" might better be "Contemporaneous Chinese," or even better, "Chinese at the time." “Barbarian houses” is not “from the term … used in Chinese officialdom,” only the logograph Yi.

Omitting the middle clause, the sentence reads “Contemporary Chinese often referred to the factories as … Cantonese faan gwai for foreigners at the time.”

How is that reader to decipher "from the term (Chinese: 夷; Sidney Lau: yi4)"?

I'll leave aside the question of whether all Chinese used the phrase "barbarian houses," even the invaders from the north, rather than "Their Cantonese neighbors" or some such.

"... and termed one of its most prominent members..." What is the antecedent for "its"? "Factories" is plural.

• Without inquiring as to how, other than telepathy, sirlanz knows that CWH "had no compunction," I would point out that the text claimed that "iron headed rat" is a "term," but is actually an epithet. This would make an excellent point in the History section to enliven the description of the bad blood on either side, but it does not belong in the Terminology section.

Here are replies to specific points raised above:

Sirlanz: "The no. 1 trader there was described abusively by his opposite numbers, we are told by an academic source, yet CWH seems to want to apply some sort of evidential standard to material to be used on these pages. That will simply take us nowhere."

1) Note #6 Palmer (1836) is not an "academic source"; it is a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE.

2) Yes, CWH does indeed want an "evidential standard."

sirlanz: "It has been the perception consistently for over 200 years that it was the cultural norm for the Chinese bureaucracy to adopt pejoratives in its official correspondence with foreigners… the entire factories time was a period of the highest possible tension between China and the West; the "barbarian" tale gives a flavour of the political and social reality of the time, of the antagonism that met the traders there day in day out."

I should have made clear that the question is not that the term Yi was used, but whether it was always translated as "barbarian."

QUESTION: If the term "barbarian" is important, why does it not appear in the rest of the article?

"the entire factories time"? Please read the article. The article covers more than the period of antagonism. It starts in the late 17th century, a time later known as the "golden age," when relations were mutually beneficial and friendly.

Lydia Liu shows that up until 1832, Yi was translated as "foreigner." Morrison's Dictionary of the Chinese Language (1815) translates Yi as "foreigner", and "foreigner" was the standard translation in East India Company usage through the early 1830s. (Liu pp. 41-42) Starting in 1832, British representatives insisted on the translation "barbarian," but it was not until 1858 that the Chinese word Yi was used in an official treaty. At that point the British insisted that the term "Yi" never be used again, precisely because they understood it to be equal to "barbarian." Liu's interpretation of these facts is challenged, but that does not affect the point here. In order to attack them, she gives extensive references to historians who use "barbarian," primarily Fairbank. See Ch 3 in Liu, Lydia He (2004). The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674013077. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The now removed reference to the Basu article, quoted above, also argues specifically that Yi should not be translated as "barbarian."

I thank sirlinz for introducing the Fang article, which is a treasure. Fang pages 95-104 translates Yi as "barbarian" but the text primarily uses "Yi" with no translation, presumably because it is better not translated.

More important, Fang gives exactly NO uses of the word "barbarian" from the time period we are talking about. That is, "barbarian houses" is his translation, not a report on how the word was used at the time. Yes, it was used, but not in the majority of the years covered by this article.

Fang addresses the point we are discussing on p. 119-120, where he lists translations for the English words "alien," "foreigner," etc. in the basic dictionaries. None of them is "barbarian."

I do not suggest that Liu and Basu be the only scholarly view represented, for most scholars until recently followed the "barbarian" translation that the British insisted on, but WP:UNDUE suggests that it should be given due weight.

sirlanz : "I have provided Williams' treatment of the use of the two relevant Chinese terms and do so without apology. It is remarkable to read CWH's skepticism about the reliability of Williams. … Williams is unequivocal about the Cantonese (and that is what will have been ringing in the ears of the traders), less plain on the Mandarin (the mode for formal communication).

I endorse the encomium to Williams, but it misses the point. You can't "prove" that Yi equals "barbarian" by simply declaring that Yi equals barbarian because Yi equals barbarian.

Williams Easy Lessons does not use the word "barbarian" to translate Yi on the cited page or any other place in the book I could find (see here). Williams translates Ying Yi on p. 238 as "English foreigners" (several times), and p. 194 does not give Yi at all.

sirlanz "It is a falsity to suggest, as does CWH here, that the term "barbarian" does not appear in the Reply to a Petition (an official pronouncement at diplomatic level between nations, no less) for it does, repeatedly, in Chinese. The literal meaning of the word - and this is and never has been controversial - is communicated well and most succinctly by the English word "barbarian".

The English word "barbarian" does not appear in the Chinese text. There is no such thing as the "literal" translation of Yi, only conventionally accepted translations derived from the context. Yi must be translated differently in different contexts and different periods. The "official term" is Yi, not "barbarian." The official term Yi was translated as "foreigner" etc. until the British in the 1830s began to insist it be translated "barbarian."

I hope this helps.ch (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A few more references

These strengthen the case that "barbarian" is not the uncontested translation for Yi.

Note 5: I cannot find any mention of the issue on pages 461-462 in Williams (1848). However on pages 467-468 Williams says

The usual name by which all foreigners are known at Canton, is fankwei or "foreign devils," an opprobrious epithet, for which there is not the least excuse, and which a native seldom uses when speaking Chinese to a foreigner. Another term, I [Yi], is used in official papers, the proper signification of which has given rise to considerable discussion, some scholars saying it means foreigner, while others translate it barbarian. The term barbarian, as used by the Greeks to denote all who did not speak Greek, or by Shakespeare to express foreigners, nearly conveys the Chinese idea; but the present use of that word meaning savages, without letters or institutions, is too strong. 467-468

Another recent scholar, Kathlene Baldanza, says:

Yi was widely used as a generic designation for Europeans during the Qing dynasty, demonstrating that it was used more as a neutral marker of foreignness than as a specific ethnic designation.”

She writes that Williams Middle Kingdom (1848) pages 466-467 agreed, and that he noted scholars disagreed that it should be translated as “Barbarian” or as “foreigner,” and was inclined to accept it as a benign term, and saw “barbarian” as an overtranslation. She continues: John Dardess points out that it was less invidious that wo (dwarf) for the Japanese or lu (raider) for the Mongols and David Atwill mainly translates it as “non-Han”. Kathlene Baldanza, Ming China and Vietnam (Cambridge University Press, 2016): p. 32-33

ch (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Chinese names

I wonder about the convenience of the "Literal Translation/Transliteration" column. The Roberts 1837 reference given does not provide the names in that column, it provides an approximate transliteration of the Cantonese names of some of the factories. It seems to me that the "Literal translation" names are just translations of the English/foreigner names into modern Chinese. They serve no purpose here as this is not the Chinese Wikipedia, unless they are used, say, in tourist brochures. I propose that the table should have

• English name.
• Cantonese name in in characters
• Transliteration of the Cantonese
• Perhaps notes on the Cantonese names.

--Error (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper article

Just leaving this here in case anyone wants a bit more info http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2181850 60.240.170.143 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)