The Boxer Rebellion 1900-01

Re: The Civil War in Libya

solarz said:

massive

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

That's grossly oversimplying the Taiping Rebellion. It was led by a nutter who it could be argued used Christianity as an excuse to rebel against a government that he already felt resentful towards. He formed his own sect that could hardly be called Christianity in a pure sense.

And to discuss Finn's original point, by the time military intervention became necessary it was too late to pull people out of China because it was too dangerous. Better to wait for relief and hunker down.

Also there would have been a perfectly bloodless way for the Chinese court to avoid the situation - not deal with the Boxer problem by turning them against the foreigners.

Re: The Civil War in Libya

Mr T said:

That's grossly oversimplying the Taiping Rebellion. It was led by a nutter who it could be argued used Christianity as an excuse to rebel against a government that he already felt resentful towards. He formed his own sect that could hardly be called Christianity in a pure sense.

And to discuss Finn's original point, by the time military intervention became necessary it was too late to pull people out of China because it was too dangerous. Better to wait for relief and hunker down.

Also there would have been a perfectly bloodless way for the Chinese court to avoid the situation - not deal with the Boxer problem by turning them against the foreigners.

Click to expand...

1- Your characterization of the Taiping Rebellion could very easily be used to described the Protestant rebellion of Martin Luther.

2- It's NEVER too late to pull your citizens out of a foreign country. In fact, you make it sound as if the Boxer Rebellion happened overnight, when the tensions had been building for DECADES.

3- Your last paragraph really shows how little you understand Chinese history. Resentment among the common people against Western colonization had been high since the Opium War, over SIXTY years ago! To claim that the Boxer Rebellion was somehow instigated and/or manipulated against foreigners by the Qing government is an extremely ignorant opinion. At best, the Qing government could be said to have turned a blind eye toward the Boxers at the beginning, but the Boxer's Rebellion is absolutely a people-based movement fueled by extreme resentment against Western foreigners who were trampling all over Chinese culture and dignity.

This leads me directly to my conclusion: westerners assume that those western foreigners of the time were innocent victims of the Boxers's Rebellion, when in reality, the vast majority of them were complicit in the exploitation and de-humanization of the Chinese people.

Certainly, there were some innocent foreigners in all that mess, and I most definitely do not condone the actions of the Boxer's Rebellion. However, it must be clear that the Boxer's Rebellion is a wrongful reaction to decades of immoral exploitation of China by foreigners, and not an unprovoked aggression against blameless westerners.

Re: The Civil War in Libya

solarz said:

This leads me directly to my conclusion: westerners assume that those western foreigners of the time were innocent victims of the Boxers's Rebellion, when in reality, the vast majority of them were complicit in the exploitation and de-humanization of the Chinese people.

Certainly, there were some innocent foreigners in all that mess, and I most definitely do not condone the actions of the Boxer's Rebellion. However, it must be clear that the Boxer's Rebellion is a wrongful reaction to decades of immoral exploitation of China by foreigners, and not an unprovoked aggression against blameless westerners.

Click to expand...

Oh boy, we're real off topic, but we're having fun and so what the hell.

Yeah, the Boxer Rebellion was certainly a justified reaction against imperialism. The foreign powers treated China like their plaything. But I think the intervention was justified as well; the Boxers had massacred tens of thousands of innocent people and were going to kill tens of thousands more. Did Western businessmen working in China deserve to be brutally murdered because they were doing business under the auspices of an unfair treaty negotiated decades before? What about their families? What about foreigners working for the Qing government? What about diplomats, or missionaries? I'm sure you can see how, despite the fact that the entire system of relations between China and the Great Powers was deeply unfair and unjustified, it doesn't mean that most of the individual foreigners were "exploiting" or "oppressing". I've the read diaries of foreigners trapped in the Legation Quarters: most were just businessmen trying to make a buck on trade or construction (hell a bunch of them were just the local shopkeepers in that neighborhood of Beijing), missionaries who thought they were saving souls, or diplomats. Indeed the only legitimate targets were the military personnel there. What if there was a huge anti-Chinese pogrom in some nation today; would not China be justified in protecting its citizens, no matter what circumstances had come before?

Of course, if the Europeans and Americans deserved to be saved, so did the many innocent Chinese who were killed mainly by the Japanese, Russian and German contingents of the relief expedition (although for purely nationalistic reasons I'll point out that the American contingent at least attempted to stop looting and summary executions when they saw them, but many American troops did loot against orders). Those Chinese wouldn't have died if the Westerners hadn't been saved. But if the Westerners hadn't intervened at all, perhaps the Boxers would have continued their rampage across more of China, and many, many more Chinese and foreigners would have died. You see how questions and contradictions multiply when you try to draw simple judgement from history, which is always more complicated than you think it is?

Anyway, I suppose the point here is that the Western intervention in the Boxer Rebellion was a legal and moral grey area and so is Libya. Unfortunately, I think that history shows these sorts of things tend to produce more animosity and just generally get messy, so I really don't want to further American involvement in Libya.

Re: The Civil War in Libya

solarz said:

1- Your characterization of the Taiping Rebellion could very easily be used to described the Protestant rebellion of Martin Luther.

Click to expand...

Martin Luther was not a pagan who happened to look at Christian literature and then decided to make up his own faith. He was brought up as a Catholic, i.e. Christian.

2- It's NEVER too late to pull your citizens out of a foreign country. In fact, you make it sound as if the Boxer Rebellion happened overnight, when the tensions had been building for DECADES.

Click to expand...

And quite possibly because tensions had built over a long time people may not have considered it a threat. And of course it is too late to pull people out of a country if their safety cannot be guaranteed. I wouldn't have believed a word said by the Boxers or the Imperial Court when matters came to a head had I been in China at the time.

To claim that the Boxer Rebellion was somehow instigated and/or manipulated against foreigners by the Qing government is an extremely ignorant opinion.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about being instigated by the Imperial court. It was a thoroughly xenophonic movement. But the Boxers were also angry against the court for not doing anything about the foreigners. Cixi had previously suppressed them but instead chose to support them. In doing so she helped fan the flames into an inferno.

This leads me directly to my conclusion: westerners assume that those western foreigners of the time were innocent victims of the Boxers's Rebellion, when in reality, the vast majority of them were complicit in the exploitation and de-humanization of the Chinese people.

Click to expand...

Interesting, one person on a forum expresses a view and that sums up the opinions of everyone from dozens of countries?

What opinion should I make about all Chinese people based on your post - that they have no concept of individual thought?

Re: The Civil War in Libya

Finn McCool said:

Oh boy, we're real off topic, but we're having fun and so what the hell.

Yeah, the Boxer Rebellion was certainly a justified reaction against imperialism. The foreign powers treated China like their plaything. But I think the intervention was justified as well; the Boxers had massacred tens of thousands of innocent people and were going to kill tens of thousands more. Did Western businessmen working in China deserve to be brutally murdered because they were doing business under the auspices of an unfair treaty negotiated decades before? What about their families? What about foreigners working for the Qing government? What about diplomats, or missionaries? I'm sure you can see how, despite the fact that the entire system of relations between China and the Great Powers was deeply unfair and unjustified, it doesn't mean that most of the individual foreigners were "exploiting" or "oppressing". I've the read diaries of foreigners trapped in the Legation Quarters: most were just businessmen trying to make a buck on trade or construction (hell a bunch of them were just the local shopkeepers in that neighborhood of Beijing), missionaries who thought they were saving souls, or diplomats. Indeed the only legitimate targets were the military personnel there. What if there was a huge anti-Chinese pogrom in some nation today; would not China be justified in protecting its citizens, no matter what circumstances had come before?

Of course, if the Europeans and Americans deserved to be saved, so did the many innocent Chinese who were killed mainly by the Japanese, Russian and German contingents of the relief expedition (although for purely nationalistic reasons I'll point out that the American contingent at least attempted to stop looting and summary executions when they saw them, but many American troops did loot against orders). Those Chinese wouldn't have died if the Westerners hadn't been saved. But if the Westerners hadn't intervened at all, perhaps the Boxers would have continued their rampage across more of China, and many, many more Chinese and foreigners would have died. You see how questions and contradictions multiply when you try to draw simple judgement from history, which is always more complicated than you think it is?

Anyway, I suppose the point here is that the Western intervention in the Boxer Rebellion was a legal and moral grey area and so is Libya. Unfortunately, I think that history shows these sorts of things tend to produce more animosity and just generally get messy, so I really don't want to further American involvement in Libya.

Click to expand...

1- Under the unequal treaties, foreigners were EXEMPT FROM CHINESE LAWS. You can claim that they were just innocent missionaries and businessmen, but think about the kind of businessmen that would go to a nation full of obviously hostile natives, and he doesn't even have to abide by local laws! A foreigner could kill or rape a Chinese, and there would be nothing the local magistrate can do. Yeah, I'm sure no abuses ever occurred under such a system!

In fact, it can easily be argued that these kinds of people were more deserving of the Boxers' wrath than many of the newly arrived foreign soldiers.


2- China in latter half of 19th century was a society in chaos. When society breaks down, people, lots of people, die. The rampage of the Boxer's Rebellion is just one such symptom, and claiming that western intervention saved lives is laughable considering that the Qing government massacred a lot more peasants under the pressure of the West in the suppression of the rebellion.

It is pointless to claim legitimacy for the Eight-Nations Invasion, because the so-called "international laws" were written (and often re-written) to suit the convenience of the foreign powers. That's why foreign nations can invade China, kill Chinese, and then demand reparation from the Chinese government!

It is equally pointless to try to justify the Eight-Nations Invasion on humanitarian grounds, because none of those nations respected the human dignity of the Chinese people in the first place! If there were any humanitarian concerns, it was humanitarian concern for their own citizens only.


3- There have been several ethnic cleansings targeting Chinese in recent decades. The Chinese government did not intervene in any one of them. And it is probably more telling that neither did the UN.

Re: The Civil War in Libya

Mr T said:

Martin Luther was not a pagan who happened to look at Christian literature and then decided to make up his own faith. He was brought up as a Catholic, i.e. Christian.

And quite possibly because tensions had built over a long time people may not have considered it a threat. And of course it is too late to pull people out of a country if their safety cannot be guaranteed. I wouldn't have believed a word said by the Boxers or the Imperial Court when matters came to a head had I been in China at the time.

I didn't say anything about being instigated by the Imperial court. It was a thoroughly xenophonic movement. But the Boxers were also angry against the court for not doing anything about the foreigners. Cixi had previously suppressed them but instead chose to support them. In doing so she helped fan the flames into an inferno.

Interesting, one person on a forum expresses a view and that sums up the opinions of everyone from dozens of countries?

What opinion should I make about all Chinese people based on your post - that they have no concept of individual thought?

Click to expand...

1- Why does whether or not a person was brought up "Christian" matter in whether followers of his sect are actually Christians? Jesus Christ was not brought up as a "Christian" either. It's not surprising though, as Christians have been picking and choosing who's Christian or not for centuries. The Catholics didn't think the Protestants were Christians either.

2- You said:

Mr.T said:

Also there would have been a perfectly bloodless way for the Chinese court to avoid the situation - not deal with the Boxer problem by turning them against the foreigners.

Click to expand...

Which is flat out wrong, because the Boxer's Rebellion was directed against foreign interests from the very beginning. There was no need for the Qing government to "turn them against foreigners".

And what exactly is so outrageous about a government that decides to support its own people against foreign colonials? Really, the truly outrageous fact is Cixi's cowardly and half-hearted support, and her bending over for the foreigners once they took her palace, and conducting a massacre against her own people at the urging for those same foreigners.

3- Your opinion on the Boxer's Rebellion is actually quite reflective of a lot of western historians. You really shouldn't assume that I would make a generalization based solely on your views.

Well let me tell you how to gauge how serious of a threat it was to the innocent lives of the colonialist's families and Christians during the Boxer Rebellion. Did I read it in my history books in school when I was a kid? No. Yes, it is that simple. Even if casualties among the so-called "innocent" were in the dozens, I'm sure it would be in history books as one of the great crimes against humanity. Since they don't even mention the Boxer Rebellion in the history books I read in school, either it wasn't as threatening as people here are making it and/or the casualties inflicted by the colonial powers on the "innocent" Chinese were far worse. Do they even acknowledge their role in anti-Chinese pogroms where women and children were slaughtered for them. There were two incidents in the Phillipines where 40,000 Chinese were slaughtered each time just to appease Spanish colonial masters. Or how about recent history where Indonesia slaughtered five hundred thousand to a million Chinese in less than a month in 1965 under pressure from the US and Australia to step up against communism. Women and children were murdered there but then they were all guilty communists even though many were living there since before communism ever existed. In that light, debating innocent and guilty in the Boxer Rebellion today just tells you that to this very day just as then some people are more valuable and have more rights than others. And China is suppose to embrace and defend a system where how many others can override the rights of Chinese at their whim even in their own country?

Since this was brought first in parallel to the Libyans Civil War thread to justify interference, the so-called innocent families and Christians are human shields. We know action against the Boxer Rebellion wasn't anything about protecting innocent lives. It was all about stopping the rebellion against oppressive foreign invaders in control of China.

The events after the Boxers - Foreign Gunboats Patrol in Yangtze River

Link:

The Yangtze Patrol: The Historical BasisIn 1900-01, all China erupted in anti-foreign riots under the leadership of the paramilitary Society of Boxers. The foreign Powers retaliated with a massive military expedition which marched on Beijing, relieved the besieged foreign embassies, and wreaked fearful vengeance on the Chinese, sacking the Imperial tombs among other things. Under the terms of the treaty forced on China after this latest defeat, the western Powers and Japan were permitted to station gunboats on China's major rivers to protect their citizens and property. Under previous treaties which closed previous wars of aggression, citizens of the Treaty Powers living in China claimed extraterritoriality -- "extrality" to Old China Hands -- i.e. immunity from Chinese law. The gunboats enforced this nonaccountability and patently encouraged its gross abuse by their nationals in China. Such injustices which would never be tolerated today -- except in Israeli-occupied Palestine and U.S.-occupied Iraq -- were among the effects of the "unequal treaties" being protested in the Sand Pebbles story; Chinese outrage at this disrespect in their own country helped feed the Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) revolution in 1926-28, which forms part of the background to the story. Through China's revolutionary decades -- from the turn of the century until 1950 -- stirring up anti-foreign sentiment made good political sense for warlord, KMT generalissimo, and Communist cadre alike.

Another Link:

Both websites have very interesting articles for reading and old photographs of gun boats in China and Far East. They are valuable historical reference for those who want to understand the foreign forces operaying in China under treaties signed by China and the 8 nations involced in the boxers incident.

Re: The Civil War in Libya

solarz said:

1- Why does whether or not a person was brought up "Christian" matter in whether followers of his sect are actually Christians? Jesus Christ was not brought up as a "Christian" either.

Click to expand...

Jesus was the son of God and the religion was founded around him - a special case, don't you think?

As for Martin Luther, it makes a difference because he always believed in Christianity. He wanted to change the way in which it was practiced. The leader of the Taiping Rebellion saw a new religion formed around himself, having taken aspects of Christianity that were interesting.

It's not surprising though, as Christians have been picking and choosing who's Christian or not for centuries. The Catholics didn't think the Protestants were Christians either.

And what exactly is so outrageous about a government that decides to support its own people against foreign colonials?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Err, maybe because, umm - gosh I'm having trouble thinking of something - let me see... oh, how about because her own "people" were xenophobic psychos who were happy to kill people based on their religion and/or nationality.

Let's get one thing straight, the Boxers were out to get anyone they believed was Christian and/or foreign. In their eyes being from one or both of those categories made you "guilty". That is why the Chinese court was so despicable in that they condoned the mob murdering/attacking civilians in order to avoid having to find a way to deal with civil unrest.

Your opinion on the Boxer's Rebellion is actually quite reflective of a lot of western historians.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised.

One fact that the discussion here over looked is that the Foreigners and FOreign missionaries in china enjoyed Extraterritorial status, which means that they can commit crimes in china and not be prosecuted by the local courts.

Chinese Christains at that time were a mixed lot, alot of them country land owning gentries who attached gthemselves to the Foreigner missionaries because in effect in places such as Shandong (the birth place of Boxers) the foreigners became a special class and "join the church" has concrete economic and political benefits. The behavior of these foreign missionaries and their chinese cohorts, is..., shall we say politely, not jesus christ like.
Together they became the local overlords and treated the chinese peasant class poorly and was a seen as a cancer on the traditional chinese society. which I would have to say rightly so.

To ignore the facts I have outlined above and label the Boxers as religious xenophobes is a rather shallow view of the history.

also, the 8-national alliance, the imperial powers if you will, just needed an excuse and Boxers were a perfect excuse to appeal to opinions at home. (we shall civilize them with an iron fist) The bottom line is they wanted to extract more consession from China and the history is perfectly clear on this one, from contemporary correspondences and memos written at the time of the crisis.

also, Japan, which one can hardly be called an Christain country, was the biggest contributor of troops to the actual intervention. (18 warships and 20K troops out of the total 54 warships and 50K intervention force). which goes to show the true character of the "humanitarian Intervention".

Russia at that time also launched an invasion of Manchuria (defnitely not a hotbed of boxers), in which Russian troops slaughtered chinese civilians. whie chinese troops treated the Russian civilans in Manchuria leniently.


incidently,
Bradley Perrett over in Ares blog on aviation week has a article on how chinese view Libya through the lenses of Boxer Rebellion and 8-nation alliance,
I would have to say Mr Perrett has a rather shallow view of history of Libya and that of china, judging from his comment of the chinese reactions.


....


My last comment:

If one study history of that near modern western empiral expansions in near and far east.
, and of history post 1919 where progressivism ideals (wilson's 14 points) and the interventions done under the guise of " humanitarian interventions"
and of the "humanitarian interventions" done Post Cold War up to today.

one can not but marvel that the west has not gotten rid of the fetish and pretension of "Humanitarianism", nor has it gotten rid of that chauvinistic desire to use force upon the less powerful to bend others to its ideals.