I think her use of "pragmatic" is more prosaic than its use in the united United States. She's saying that there's no immoral drugs conspiracy, or necessarily a conspiracy at all.
On one hand that's irrelevant, and I think that's the point you're making: that war was the first nail in the coffin (which had been a-building for over a century) for the Qing dynasty, and regardless of the cause that was the action's effect.
However if you agree with her analysis there are another couple of important lessons: not everything requires a conspiracy (in fact the whole British Empire has been described as being "created in a fit of absent-mindedness") -- in other words the collective local actions of many can have a malign global effect. This should influence any of us when designing systems: do they misuse user data? Exploit or make our customers susceptible to attack? This very issue comes up in another HN submission today, on the privacy implications of self-driving cars.
And her analysis points out another important feature: though not everything requires a conspiracy, adding one post facto can be very useful. Consider both sides' propaganda battle after Al Qaida attacked NY&DC: both benefited (at least in the short term) by portraying it as a massive clash of cilizations rather as a publicity stunt by a bunch of asshole gangsters. The same was true by using the term "opium war" and its continued value today on the Chinese side.
On one hand that's irrelevant, and I think that's the point you're making: that war was the first nail in the coffin (which had been a-building for over a century) for the Qing dynasty, and regardless of the cause that was the action's effect.
However if you agree with her analysis there are another couple of important lessons: not everything requires a conspiracy (in fact the whole British Empire has been described as being "created in a fit of absent-mindedness") -- in other words the collective local actions of many can have a malign global effect. This should influence any of us when designing systems: do they misuse user data? Exploit or make our customers susceptible to attack? This very issue comes up in another HN submission today, on the privacy implications of self-driving cars.
And her analysis points out another important feature: though not everything requires a conspiracy, adding one post facto can be very useful. Consider both sides' propaganda battle after Al Qaida attacked NY&DC: both benefited (at least in the short term) by portraying it as a massive clash of cilizations rather as a publicity stunt by a bunch of asshole gangsters. The same was true by using the term "opium war" and its continued value today on the Chinese side.