"not arresting growers, but supervising quality control"

[Paul Nightingale]

Otto wrote:
> 
> But it's a strange way opening the Foreword, isn't it? Pointing to the
> fact
> that what his father did in his job isn't exactly what we today would
> expect
> from an agent of the Opium Department. In those days the OD still
deserved
> its name, no newspeak.
> 

Yes, it's not 'just' biographical detail, 'mere' background information.
Any time we read anything we have to ask ourselves (perhaps but not
necessarily consciously) what the text means, what it means to us. Two
possible responses to dwell on here. We might think, well, we're a bit
more advanced (or civilised/enlightened?) nowadays, drugs are a bad
thing, thankfully governments nowadays do arrest growers etc. The war on
drugs is a good thing. This response locates the reader 'here' looking
back with the benefit of hindsight. Another response is to ponder the
possibility that, because government-sponsored opium production then, in
1903, was a bad thing, well, maybe government actions now, in 2003, are
(sometimes) questionable. Maybe someone looking back from 2103 will be
critical of (aspects of) 2003's thinking. This second response
historicises thinking, and in my view it's what P does throughout this
essay.