The Boxer Rebellion 1900-01

Re: The Civil War in Libya

Mr T said:

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.



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.



I'm not surprised.

Click to expand...

The Leader and Founder of Taiping Rebellion, Hong Xiu Quang also proclaimed that he is the brother of Jesus Christ and son of God.
and he is to bring paradise on earth.

Now you can say whatever you want and label him as a heretic or a false prophet. but he did proclaim that. and for better or worse He does call himself a christain.
But I guess when Taiping army threatened the Yangtze Delta and along with it commerical interest of Britain, I guess Western humanitarians has no compunction to supply the imperial chinese forces with modern arms and training and even provided mercenaries to help to put down the rebellion often with extreme brutality. That is not a very Jesus Christ thing to do isn't it?



you have to ask yourself this queston:

To protect Christains and kill other chinese, just because you can and you think the "locals" are xenophobes, would Jesus Christ do that???

Protect Chinese Christains My Ass.

What always bother me about the name, it is not a rebellion if the officials endorse it. It was more like a militia trying to defend against foreign forces that the central government is too weak to take on.

Mr T said:

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

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.

I'm not surprised.

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did bring up that point earlier, but as usual, Mr. T simply chooses to ignore whatever doesn't suit his arguments.

It's a bit ludicrous to claim that Taiping Rebels were not Christians even though they ascribed to the Christian belief system. Still, that's a rather irrelevant issue I'm not interested into going off-topic about.

The real clincher is this:

Mr.T said:

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".

Click to expand...

And this shows what's really despicable here, and this is a comment addressed to certain versions of Western History on the Boxer's Rebellion, and not just to Mr. T:

This point of view completely ignores the decades of foreign oppression and unequal treaties that Western Powers have been inflicting upon the Chinese People. When you oppress a people, they *WILL* fight back, and when that happens, it's of the utmost hypocrisy and disingenuity to claim that those fighting back are in the wrong because they do not distinguish between different individuals of the oppressors.

In no way do I condone the barbarity of the Boxer's Rebellion, but I find it DESPICABLE that Western Histories largely white-wash their own roles in the formation of this tragic piece of history.

solarz said:

.....

Click to expand...

all these verbiage makes me headhurt.

A very simple test would be: would the action itself violates the very principle you are trying to defend? if not then this is pure hypocrisy.... a cover for ulterior motives.
to put it simply in this case: would Jesus Christ himeself condone an 8-nation alliance to "save the Christains" and extract a hefty concession back then? I would venture to guess "no".

a good metric is the golden rule: don't do to other what you don't want others to do to yourself.
a form of this has been in nearly all of world's religions. it is as good of a rule as in any.

Love how people complain about Arab dictators use civilians as human shields when this is the same thing. Let's just use the same excuse they used against muslim civilians in questionable countries. If they do not rise up against the wrongs of their own government they are as guilty. Since the innoncent people victimized by the Boxer rebellion against the evils of their government didn't do anything but support it, they're guilty. And the difference is their "innocent" civilians were in China as a part of making sure the evil colonialists maintain power. Yeah, their motives in China were all innocent. Love how they can kill Native Americans and enslave Africans (and they were all guilty of course because they do no wrong against innocent people) but at the same time period over in China they were all motivated by the goodness of their hearts. And let's not forget that the Japanese Empire was born out trying to be a part of the club. They were following their example. So if they think the Japanese Empire was evil, then they are looking at the result of people trying to be just like them. Just like how they're trying to make their actions during Boxer Rebellion all about saving the innocent civilians and not about the rebellion against their undemocratic dictatorial rule over China. Look at what they see as the difference between them and the Japanese Empire. To them it all was all foreign cultures and race. Which now they paint China as the new Japanese Empire because of the prejuduce of those similarities and not how they were emulating them.

i.e. said:

a good metric is the golden rule: don't do to other what you don't want others to do to yourself.
a form of this has been in nearly all of world's religions. it is as good of a rule as in any.

Click to expand...

If only China could see it that way.

bladerunner said:

If only China could see it that way.

Click to expand...

China was doing that before the Opium Wars yet still got attacked anyways, as the rampant hypocrisy and avarice of the west once again shown itself. Let's see the west act by the golden rule for once.

Hmmmmmmmm Along with the Dutch the chinese was engaged in relieving the Indonesian nobility of their wealth, be it in land or precious stones etc, long before the Opium wars.

the ancient/historical wars fought between the invading Chinese and Vietnamese yada yada. therefore i seriously doubt that the Chinese empire was established without any violence and unfairness.

So the Boxer rebellion with its destruction of things foreign etc was a response to the presence of some undesirables etc etc, hmm I seem to recall something like that happenng in 2008.

Looky here. Now a supposed crime over a hundred years ago justifies Indonesians murdering half a million to a million innocent civilians in less than a month in 1965. Did China attack Indonesia for that? Love the precedent of that one. In context to that, it's laughable to suggest the actions against the Boxer Rebellion were justifiable because innocent civilian lives were at stake. I wonder what "legal" action can be taken today for the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Africans, and colonialism. Hey, they're justifying the massacre of innocents just because of a supposed crime that happened over a hundred years before. It's funny how people charged me with lying when I tell them of someone I know made up a fictional Chinese invasion of Japan that to him justified what they did during World War II even after his own friend told him no such invasion ever happened. So Chinese in reality can be punished for a crime that only happened in his head. And they don't understand why Chinese don't easily bow down to them.

And I hear Vietnamese talk about how they conquered Chinese hundreds of years ago. It's just like how Mongols today are complaining about how Chinese land belongs to them and they're the victims. It makes you wonder why they're complaining about the Middle East because according to that logic terrorism is a justifiable act against historic oppression by them. Look at that arrogance of that logic when it can easily be applied more to them.

bladerunner said:

Hmmmmmmmm Along with the Dutch the chinese was engaged in relieving the Indonesian nobility of their wealth, be it in land or precious stones etc, long before the Opium wars.

the ancient/historical wars fought between the invading Chinese and Vietnamese yada yada. therefore i seriously doubt that the Chinese empire was established without any violence and unfairness.

So the Boxer rebellion with its destruction of things foreign etc was a response to the presence of some undesirables etc etc, hmm I seem to recall something like that happenng in 2008.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that Chinese is relieving Indonesian nobility of their land and precious stone

A BS Back then Chinese in Indonesia are not allowed to own a land because the nobility ask the Dutch goverment not to grant land ownership to the Chinese in order to avoid competition. But the Chinese, who are themselves impoverish ex farmer, does not interested in working on the land

Instead they are in more lucrative trade collecting agricultural product and sell it to the large Dutch companies.In turn they sell the daily neccessity to the natives. In a way acting as middle man between Dutch and Indonesian local producer.

The role that the colonial Dutch encourage since they can't find enough dutchman to run a modern country.Not too many dutchman want to immigrate because of the heat and malaria, primitive living condition.

Instead of exploiting the Chinese facilitate trade,founded city, built the sugar industry and clove cigarette industy. Most of them serve in Dutch civil servant. That is the reason why they are hated because they are considered as comprador to the Dutch

Even today most of the lucrative company in Indonesia are own by the Chinese They still stand as a distinctive group because of segregation by the Dutch. Unlike in Thailand most of the Chinese inter marry with the Thai. Officialy Chinese in Thailand is only 10%but unofficially 50% of Thai have Chinese blood in them specially Bangkok including the last 7 prime minister and the last 3 Kings and almost 90% of Upper and lower House

Actually they did kidnapped many Chinese on open sea not for the bounty but for the Chinese themselves in order to populate modern city of Batavia that they are building

Back then the indonesian nobility are degenerate bunch collecting money from Dutch colonial power and debauch themselves with woman and unending ceremony