Connect with us

Entertainment

China, opium and racial capitalism: Amitav Ghosh on the roots of a deadly business

Published

on

China, opium and racial capitalism: Amitav Ghosh on the roots of a deadly business

On the Shelf

‘Smoke and Ashes: Opium’s Hidden Histories’

By Amitav Ghosh
Farrar, Straus and Giroux: 416 pages, $32

If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.

Advertisement

After the mid-18th century, when the British East India Co. was importing tea from China, few could have guessed that the industry would be revolutionized by a different plant: the opium poppy. Over the next century and beyond, Britain and other colonial powers, joined by American and Indian merchants, amassed unimaginable wealth by getting the Chinese addicted to opium. It was opium money from trade with China that primarily funded the expansion of so many Western corporations and institutions.

In his latest book, “Smoke and Ashes: Opium’s Hidden Histories,” Amitav Ghosh subverts Eurocentric history and digs open the recesses of racial capitalism, specifically Indian farmers coerced into growing poppy and the consequent pumping of opium into China. Ghosh exposes the hypocrisy of the Western world in perpetrating structural violence against Asians under the garb of free trade and progress and the uncanny similarities between the Machiavellian tactics of the opium business in China and of those who triggered the modern-day American opioid crisis. This conversation has been edited lightly.

China has long been perceived as an alien culture by the West. It has been demonized time and again, and after the COVID-19 outbreak, the animosity toward China has only worsened. But most Americans aren’t aware of the legacy in America of merchants who made their fortune in Guangzhou (Canton). Could you throw more light on that?

It might come as a shock to most readers that the U.S. has been dependent on China right from the very start. In 1783, when America was born, it was unable to trade with any of its neighbors that were still part of the British Empire. So, the Americans realized that it was essential for them to trade with China. In fact, one of the grievances that led to the birth of the U.S. was that the Americans were initially prohibited from trading with China because the trade was in the hands of the British East India Co. There was a lot of resentment against the East India Co.’s monopoly over tea. So almost immediately after the birth of the republic, China became the primary trading partner for the U.S. But the problem that the U.S. had in relation to China was the same that the British had — that the world again has today in relation to China — that the whole world buys Chinese goods, but the world doesn’t have any goods or enough goods to sell to China apart from resources because the Chinese make everything themselves. China was then, as it is now, the world’s great manufacturing hub.

Advertisement

(Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

So many of the technologies that we know today were stolen from China by the West, such as porcelain, gunpowder, compasses and bank deposit insurance. When the Americans started trading with China in the late 18th century, they started with furs and later sandalwood, but soon they just couldn’t find enough stuff to sell to China. So eventually they started doing what the British did: They started selling opium to China, sourced initially from Turkey and then later from India. For many generations, young Americans, especially very privileged white men predominantly from Massachusetts and other parts of New England and New York, would travel to China, and they would come back within four or five years with these immense fortunes. China gave them the experience of doing global trade, understanding currencies and foreign exchange, etc. They also became aware of the new industries that were then arising in Europe because of the Industrial Revolution. So, they came back to the U.S. and became the founders of all these modern industries, most importantly, perhaps the railroads.

You’ve drawn parallels between the Chinese opium crisis and the American opioid crisis. The British blamed the Chinese for being corrupt and mentally feeble. According to the British, they were simply meeting the Chinese demand for opium. Whereas we’ve seen in the American opioid crisis that it’s not demand but supply that dictates the flow of opium, as is evident in the case of the five states that had additional regulations to curb the prescription of opioids. These states (California, Idaho, New York, Texas and Illinois) experienced low growth in overdose deaths. So, it’s clear that it is supply and not demand that controls opium.

Initially, the British had trouble selling even 500 crates of opium to China, but once it got on, it was like a forest fire, and by the end of the 19th century, the Chinese were consuming hundreds of thousands of crates of Indian opium. So, when the anti-opium movement tried to constrain the British Empire from selling opium, the British deflected the blame onto the Chinese demand for it. This is essentially what the Sackler family also said in America when they introduced OxyContin; addicts were blamed. The British “logic”: There’s a demand for it, and if we don’t meet it, then someone else will.

Advertisement

The Sacklers were aided by a lot of historians and academicians who put forth revisionist arguments in favor of rehabilitating opioids. They even took the FDA into confidence, right?

That’s right. It wasn’t until the victims’ families began to protest in a very big way that the narrative changed. Until then, the people who were defending opiates had control of the narrative for the longest time. I think it’s also important to note that this kind of opioid crisis seems to go hand-in-hand with a certain kind of civilizational crisis. That was certainly the case with China when it started getting engulfed in the web of opium in the late 18th century. Suddenly, it found itself having to question its ideas of centrality in the world. It was facing, literally, an existential threat.

I think something very similar is happening in America today. There’s really a profound sense of civilizational crisis. And for ordinary Americans, they are facing life conditions that are unimaginably difficult. In a way, the opioid crisis took off because of all these other factors within society. Deindustrialization was happening, and old mining communities were disintegrating. Opium was sold to extremely vulnerable communities where there was a lot of pain and social difficulties. So, we really see a kind of playing out of what happened in China in the 19th century.

The anti-opium movement in the early 20th century rattled the British Empire, and eventually China succeeded in getting most of its population off opium. You’ve pointed out in your book that one of the problems with the American war on drugs was that it pinned the blame not only on the producers but also on the consumers, whereas the anti-opium drive only targeted the producers. The Chinese establishment ensured that they treated the addicts with sympathy.

This is the problem, really. The war on drugs was a state-led movement initiated by the U.S. armed forces and its security establishment. And there was a kind of double dealing involved because the Americans were using heroin, etc. in their conflicts in Southeast Asia, Latin America and so on. At the same time, they were also trying to suppress cocaine and other drugs, and they created an incredible mess. The first problem with the war on drugs is the idea of what exactly constitutes a drug. Many of the substances that they banned and considered drugs were, as we now know, in many ways beneficial to humanity.

Advertisement

Now they’ve changed strategies. More and more states are recognizing that many substances they call drugs are actually very beneficial, like psilocybin mushrooms, which can be used to treat depression. America now finds itself trying to control the circulation of heroin, fentanyl, etc. The problem is that again, it’s a state-led initiative, and it’s failing. Opioid-related deaths peaked during COVID-19, and it was thought that after the epidemic they would tail off. But no, it’s only continued to grow. Especially because fentanyl is so cheap and easily available, more and more people are dying of substance abuse.

What happened in Asia in the late 19th century and early 20th century was a very remarkable thing. You saw the emergence of a popular grassroots movement that was opposed to the free circulation of opioids, and that was effective. Even though, in China, the addiction problem continued until the 1950s, when, finally, the Communist Party did crack down on it. I don’t think any country will be able to reproduce that today.

One of the problems with addiction is that it happens indoors; the victims are out of sight. If you just look around America today, you wouldn’t think there was a problem. Many people who traveled to China in the 19th century thought everything was fine, but it wasn’t. In recent years, the U.S. Army has not been able to meet its recruitment goals. A recent survey found that not even 25% of young Americans are eligible to serve in the Army, partly because of obesity, mental health problems or drug use. Now that is a crisis.

Advertisement

Entertainment

How Southern California punk veterans built 84 Days’ politically charged debut album

Published

on

How Southern California punk veterans built 84 Days’ politically charged debut album

When playing in a legendary South Bay punk band is your day job, most people likely wouldn’t have too many musical side projects. But most people aren’t Pennywise bassist Randy Bradbury.

Having frequently kept the door open for different bands and genres of music, Bradbury’s newest project is the Huntington Beach-based 84 Days. The trio features the veteran songwriter on guitar and lead vocals, Grammy-winning rock producer Cameron Webb on bass and No Doubt’s Adrian Young on drums (at least for the self-titled debut album) — and while 84 Days’ sound and tempo differs significantly from Pennywise, it’s still very much a punk-leaning rock band.

When asked about the name, Bradbury says, “The term ’84 Days’ originally started as an inside joke back when I was a teenager, but watching the world change so much it seems to be a fitting description for how things have become … like something I read in a book once. And now we’re in it.”

Though it may seem odd to launch a new band after more than a collective century of experience in the music industry, Bradbury and Webb agree that 84 Days “sounded like too much fun” to not pursue. And if their debut show at DiPiazza’s in Long Beach back in November was anything to go off of, it’ll be a good time for fans too.

“I think the Randy Bradbury name is bigger than you would think,” Webb says via Zoom. “People obviously relate him to Pennywise, but he’s an individual that a lot of people like — especially other musicians. Everyone knows him and thinks he’s great, so people have just been really supportive of everything.”

Advertisement

“I was just waiting to see what the reaction to the songs would be,” Bradbury adds. “I’d say it’s been very positive so far, so I think we’ll have Green Day opening for us in about a year.”

Jokes about the new band’s popularity aside, Bradbury and Webb’s years in the industry have given 84 Days the kind of platform and connections most bands can only dream of. Case in point, when Young was unable to continue with his drumming duties for the band’s first live shows, Bradbury was able to recruit his friend Erik “Smelly” Sandin from NOFX to fill in for the time being.

“We’ve both been in the Southern California music scene for decades, so I know a lot of people and made a lot of friends,” Bradbury says. “I’ve kept note of who are the players I look up to and would love to play with; as soon as I found out Adrian wasn’t going to play with us, I knew I was going to ask [Sandin].”

“We’re friends with these people because I work with them or Randy tours with them, so we cross paths all the time in the studio or at shows,” Webb says. “Everyone’s been really supportive of me, who doesn’t do it every day. No one’s like ‘You shouldn’t be doing that.’ They’re like, ‘I can’t wait to see this’ or ‘You’re going to kill it.’ So it does make me feel good to see the community be excited for us to play a show.”

Advertisement

But as Bradbury is quick to point out, all of those connections are “contingent on if you’re doing something interesting” and if the music itself is actually good. Thankfully, between Bradbury’s elite writing chops and Webb’s tastemaking ability (as usually seen behind the scenes on other bands’ albums), 84 Days’ self-titled debut isn’t just a fun punk jaunt but a deep look into how the songwriter views the current state of society and the world — including topics that wouldn’t exactly fit ahead of “Bro Hymn” in a Pennywise setlist.

Even though 84 Days may have been founded around the idea of being a “fun” project for its members, none of them is interested in sticking with it if the band itself is less than stellar. While Bradbury is used to performing for a living, the looming threat of live shows encouraged Webb to genuinely practice and tighten his bass skills, having primarily only picked one up previously to help in the studio from time to time.

“I grab instruments a lot, but now I had to learn all these songs and rehearse them,” Webb says. “I’ve got to know my s— and play them as well as the pros that do it every single day. I want us to be a killer band, so we’re going to be a killer band. That just means it’s time to stop goofing around. Instead of going home and watching TV, I’m practicing. I’m learning parts. I’m working on riffs. I’m doing all of that. It’s super fun because Randy makes it a great experience. We’re having a good time doing it and everything’s real positive, so we’re going to keep doing it.”

Just a few shows and one album into their career, it’s too early to tell what the ceiling is for 84 Days. The duo could see it continuing to just play bars and small venues or growing into something much larger. In fact, Bradbury laughs at the idea of some of the bands he knows opening for them — as long as it’s not his new band upstaging Pennywise.

Advertisement

“I think that that tour would end with a lot of bruises on my body and a lot of smashed guitars and basses.”

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages

Published

on

‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages

I’m convinced that each SpongeBob movie released on the big screen serves as a testament to the current state of the series. The 2004 film was a send-off for the early series run. Sponge Out of Water symbolized the Paul Tibbitt era, and Sponge on the Run served as a major transitional period between soft reboot and spin-off setup. The team responsible for Search for SquarePants, which consists of current showrunners Marc Ceccarelli and Vince Waller, as well as the seasoned Kaz, is showcasing their comedic and absurdist abilities. The sole purpose of the film is to elicit laughter with its distinctively silly and irreverent, whimsical humor. More so than its predecessor, it creates a mindless romp. Granted, there are far too many butt-related jokes, to a weird degree.

Truthfully, I am apprehensive about the insistence of each SpongeBob movie being CG-animated. However, Drymon, who directed the final Hotel Transylvania film, Transformania, brings the series’ quirky, outrageous 2D-influenced poses and expressive style into a 3D space. Its CG execution, done by Texas-based Reel FX (Book of Life, Rumble, Scoob), is far superior to Mikros Animation’s Sponge on the Run, which, despite its polish, has experimental frame rate issues with the comic timing and is influenced by The Spider-Verse. FX encapsulates the same fast, frenetic pace in its absurdist humor, which enables a significant number of the jokes to be effective and feel like classic SpongeBob.

With lovely touches like gorgeous 2D artwork in flashback scenes and mosaic backgrounds during multiple action shots, Drymon and co expand the cinematic scope, enhancing its theatrical space. Taking on a darker, if not more obscene, tone in the main underworld setting, the film’s purple- and green-infused visual palette adds a unique shine that sets it apart from other Sponge-features. Its strong visual aesthetic preserves the SpongeBob identity while capturing the spirit of swashbuckling and satisfying a Pirates of the Caribbean void in the heart.

The film’s slapstick energy is evident throughout, as it’s purposefully played as a romp. The animators’ hilarious antics, which make the most of each set piece to a comical degree, feel like the ideal old-fashioned love letter to the new adults who grew up with SpongeBob and are now introducing it to their kids. This is a perfect bridge. There’s a “Twelfth Street Rag” needle drop in a standout montage sequence that will have older viewers astral projecting with joy. 

Search for SquarePants retreads water but with a charming swashbuckling freshness.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Latinos continue to be underrepresented in streaming shows, new UCLA report finds

Published

on

Latinos continue to be underrepresented in streaming shows, new UCLA report finds

Latinos remain severely underrepresented in the television industry, according to UCLA’s latest Hollywood Diversity Report.

Released Tuesday, the report examined the top 250 series available on streaming, including both library offerings and current titles. Overall, it revealed a steep fall in cultural diversity among 2024’s top comedies and dramas, as well as fewer projects created by people of color and women.

For Latinos, representation on screen and behind the camera is scarce. Only 1.1% of the top streaming scripted shows were created by Latinos. Of the top streaming comedies and dramas, 3.3% had Latino lead actors and 5.2% were co-led by Latino actors. When looking exclusively at current streaming shows (excluding library titles), 1.1% were created by Latinos and 6.2% were led by Latino actors.

UCLA’s Hollywood Diversity Report dates back to 2014. The first iteration of the study used data that had been collected since 2011. Ana-Christina Ramón, UCLA’s director of the Entertainment and Media Research Initiative, says that this level of underrepresentation across all kinds of media is nothing new.

Advertisement

“It’s a consistent finding in our reports. But the numbers are such a stark level of underrepresentation because of the fact that we’re almost 20% of the population,” said Ramón. “Even when the numbers are a little bit better, they’re never close to where they should be.”

This lack of representation isn’t exclusive to the Latino population. The report found that four out of five leads in the most-watched streaming comedies and dramas were white actors, and white men account for nearly 79% of all show creators — leaving nearly every other race and ethnicity severely marginalized.

The downward trend comes at a time when President Trump has consistently targeted and called to end all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. As a result, much of Hollywood has followed his lead. Paramount Global changed its staffing goals related to gender, race, ethnicity and sex; Warner Bros. Discovery restated its DEI activities as “inclusion”; and Walt Disney Co. got rid of its “diversity and inclusion” performance standard used to calculate executive compensation.

These findings generally defy American audiences’ preference for diverse content. The research shows that “a relatively diverse cast and diverse credited writers often resulted in higher ratings,” especially when these stories from diverse communities are live-action and scripted.

This trend isn’t isolated to television — eight of 2024’s top 10 streaming films and 14 of the top 20 streaming films featured casts with more than 30% people of color, according to previous UCLA research.

Advertisement

Despite the lack of Latino representation, Netflix’s narco-drama starring Sofia Vergara, “Griselda,” was the fifth-most-streamed television of 2024. In Latino households specifically, it reached third place, behind children’s TV shows “Bluey” and “Bebefinn.”

“The silver lining is that [‘Griselda’] was very popular, and though it’s a stereotypical topic, because it was made by the same people that made ‘Narcos,’ it had a prestige factor that gets passed along,” said Ramón.

She finds that the shows that tend to do well have to have a well-known lead actor, be of an interesting topic and be attached to something that is already established or popular. In 2023, the report included Netflix’s “Wednesday” at the fourth-most-streamed show and “The Last of Us” at No. 7, both shows featuring Latino lead actors.

All three titles “have a high production value and are familiar stories” — as “Griselda” was based on a true story, “Wednesday” builds off the IP of “The Addams Family” and “The Last of Us” is based on a video game.

“Regardless of which [ethnic] group you’re talking about, it really has to do with these very specific pieces,” said Ramón. “The very promising finding is the fact that underrepresented stories, which include Latinx stories and other BIPOC stories, tend to do better than shows that don’t, in terms of reviews and ratings.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending