Topic 5 AP Exam Practice
Multiple-Choice Questions
Questions 1 to 3 refer to the passage below.
“It appeared that the Laws of the Chinese Empire forbid the importation of opium into China and declare that all Opium which may be brought into the country is liable to confiscation. The Queen of England desires that Her Subjects who may go into foreign countries should obey the Laws of those countries; and Her Majesty does not wish to protect them from the just consequences of any offenses which they may commit in foreign parts. But, on the other hand, Her Majesty cannot permit that Her Subjects residing abroad should be treated with violence, and be exposed to insult and injustice; and when wrong is done to them, Her Majesty will see that they obtain redress.”
British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, Letter to the
Minister of the Emperor of Chinese, 1840
1. What is the context of the letter above?
- (A) Britain is seeking to gain permission for Christian missionaries to enter China.
- (B) Britain is upset that the Chinese government has denied British ships free trade privileges.
- (C) Britain has just defeated the China in the first Opium War.
- (D) There is a civil war going on in China.
2. How did the Chinese government react to this letter?
- (A) They continued to prevent the importation of opium.
- (B) They acquiesced and agreed to all its demands.
- (C) They allowed only Dutch and French ships to enter their ports.
- (D) They declared all European ships quarantined.
3. Which of the following is an accurate reflection of the relationship between China and Britain at the time of the passage?
- (A) Britain knew China was a first-rate military power.
- (B) Britain viewed China as an economic super power.
- (C) China and England both sought the support of Japan.
- (D) China was unaware of Britain’s military power.
Short-Answer Questions
1. Use the passage below to answer all parts of the question that follows.
“It was at this moment that the East India Company (EIC) ceased to be a conventional corporation, trading and silks and spices, and became something much more unusual. Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power. . . .
We still talk about the British conquering India, but that phrase disguises a more sinister reality. It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London, and managed in India by an unstable sociopath—[Robert] Clive.
In many ways the EIC was a model of corporate efficiency: 100 years into its history, it had only 35 permanent employees in its head office. Nevertheless, that skeleton staff executed a corporate coup unparalleled in history: the military conquest, subjugation and plunder of vast tracts of southern Asia. It almost certainly remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history. For all the power wielded today by the world’s largest corporations— whether ExxonMobil, Walmart or Google—they are tame beasts compared with the ravaging territorial appetites of the [militarized] East India Company. Yet if history shows anything, it is that in the intimate dance between the power of the state and that of the corporation, while the latter can be regulated, it will use all the resources in its power to resist.”
William Dalrymple, “The East India Company: The Original Corporate Raiders,” The Guardian, 2015
2. Answer the following questions.