Posted by: Aadisht on: April 23, 2010
The first time as labour, the second time as capital.
This is interesting. Back in the 19th century, when Southern Pacific and Central Pacific were building transcontinental railroads in the USA, they used Chinese labourers when they hit California. Here’s a very Web 1.0 page on the subject. Precis-ing it madly, the interesting bits are:
The Wikipedia page on Chinese American History (badly needs cleanup) points out that things weren’t quite as rosy as that:
Eventually, the Chinese labourers also started working in fisheries and agriculture, and established a massive Chinatown in San Francisco.
Cut to today. China is now offering investment and technical expertise to build California’s high-speed rail line.
That New York Times article in the link has a full circle narrative, and saying that China is now bringing technology and money instead of labour; but given the way the Chinese operate, they’ll probably bring in the labour as well. (Alas, no citations to offer here except private emails about what’s going on at Mundra port and my own observation about the Huawei office in Mumbai)
The really interesting part is on Page 2 of the article:
China’s mostly state-controlled banks had few losses during the global financial crisis and are awash with cash now because of tight regulation and a fast-growing economy. The Chinese government is also becoming disenchanted with bonds and looking to diversify its $2.4 trillion in foreign reserves by investing in areas like natural resources and overseas rail projects.
“They’ve got a lot of capital, and they’re willing to provide a lot of capital” for a California high-speed rail system, Mr. Crane said.
I have a conspiracy theory that infrastructure is only the beginning, but more on that in a separate post.
The transcontinental railroad was completed after the War, so that can’t be it.
Californian senators were antislavery because their constituents were largely immigrants from the northern states (and Europeans, and Australians, all of whom were antislavery to begin with).
April 24, 2010 at 1:46 am
the question of granting statehood to California helped trigger the US Civil War.
Dunno about this. There was a 10 year gap between CA getting statehood and the civil war. In between was Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and of course, the Buchanan presidency. I am doubtful of the CA statehood triggering the civil war. Happy to be corrected though.
April 24, 2010 at 10:05 am
The funda of California helping trigger the Civil War was that until the transcontinental railroads connected California to the rest of the US, it was a territory and not a state. Rail connectivity spurred an immigration boom and pushed it towards statehood. Before this, the North and South had an equal number of senators. Because California politics was heavily influenced by the railroads and the old boys club of the railroad promoters, California’s senators were antislavery – which made the slaveowning states much more anxious about a slavery ban and helped precipitate the civil war.
April 24, 2010 at 10:07 am
I also just checked Wikipedia for Kansas-Nebraska act. It says that it was passed to assist in the creation of Transcontinental railroads. Which in turn were being pushed for by the railroad-Republican complex in California. So it’s all of a piece.