The Boxer Rebellion 1900-01

about the BR in our country does not any people concern it !!
in my high school the history textbook said the boxer rebellion were the national hero and striked with the foreign invader .,abd the CCP also the national hero and fight with the japan invader . but now more facts were revealed that the BR just a numerous extremist ,they are only a lot of pitful people . they did not know about the complexion and imposed by the qing dynasty emperor's mother "cixi" .

but in the national crisis ,i think every one would be an craze patriot. just as the western papers described "extremist"!!!!

Hmm, I do know of a quote of the Habsburg Ambassador to China stating "Währe ich Chinese währe ich Boxer", translated: "If I would be Chinese I would be a Boxer".

Originally Posted by szbd

Oh man, no, this guy Yuan Weishi sucks. He's a professor of department of Philosiphy, not History. All his work was about to say what we Chinese think are wrong, and we should accept western ideas. He make constent mistakes in history and his view is even more biased than biased western views.

I don't know about that, but some parts of his article did strike me as problematic:

According to the Treaty of Huangpo established between China and France in October 1844, French people were allowed to be active only within the "designated territories" in the five ports agreed upon by both parties. "Any French citizen found to violate this rule, or cross the boundaries, or enter the interior, will be arrested by Chinese officials and sent to the nearest French consulate; the Chinese officials must not assault, injure or mistreat any arrested French persons so as not to damage the amity between the two nations."

Chapdelaine began to preach in Guangxi in 1842. After the Treaty of Huangpo was signed, he refused to leave. This was a wrongful act under the Treaty. But it was wrong for the Xilin official to execute him, for this was against the Treaty obligation to send the arrested Frenchman to the consulate. Today, people have still not figured out what Chapdelaine did to deserve being put to death. According to the normal legalistic viewpoint of justice, the Chinese side was no doubt in the wrong. The textbook is therefore inaccurate in the characterization of this incident.

At that point in history, pretty much any treaty signed by the Qing government with Western powers was an unequal treaty. While we don't know what Chapdelaine did wrong, claiming that the Chinese side was automatically in the wrong because they did not follow the terms of an unequal treaty is, without a doubt, a slap in the face of most Chinese.

A good parallel would be in the movie "Fist of Fury", when Bruce Lee pulverised a sign in front of a park that said: "No dogs and Chinese allowed".

For example, law is the crystallization of human civilization and the rules by which society operates. International treaties have legal validity. People can point out that these treaties and laws were created with the foreign powers in charge and that they are therefore disadvantageous to the weak countries and the poor people. People should continue to criticize and expose the flaws and go through various negotiations using different types of pressures to set up new regulations and treaties. But before the revisions take place, we must still continue to abide by them or else we create unnecessary chaos which are detrimental to the weaker nations and the poor people in the final analysis.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, people in China have done many "illegal" things. The Boxer incident is one example. The important thing to note is that there are still people who regard those barbarous activities as "revolution." In the 90's of the twentieth century, there are still people who regard the viewpoint of abiding by international treaties as treasonous surrender that ought to be seriously denounced!

I think this pretty much sums up Mr. Yuan's views, and explains why his position is an unpopular one, and also shows how it is flawed.

Mr. Yuan is basically saying that it doesn't matter if a treaty is equal or unequal, as long as it exists, it should be followed. If you want to change it, you should do it through diplomatic channels.

What Mr. Yuan forgets is that no diplomacy can exist without force of arms to back it up. The Qing government was in no position to militarily challenge the Western Powers, and thus it was in no position to bring about any diplomatic change to the treaties!

Secondly, Mr Yuan also forgets, or perhaps he deliberately ignores, the fact that the Qing government on the whole did follow those unequal treaties. That there were incidents is natural as those treaties are unequal, and considered to be humiliations. The foreign invasions happened after a couple of relatively minor incidents. Take this quote, for example:

It should also be pointed out that the textbook failed to mention the two basic root causes of this war. First, the English government asked the Qing government to faithfully follow the requirements of the Treaty of Jiangning, in which an important clause was that the English officials and merchants be allowed to enter and leave Guangzhou city freely. Letting the foreigners enter the city seems to be a trivial matter today. At the time, there were similar disputes in the other four open ports as well, but those tussles were resolved without crises. In Guangzhou, it was a total mess that shook the entire government and set the first example of refusing access to the foreigners. This matter went on for more than ten years without resolution, until it had to be settled in the battlefield.

If we brought this scenario to the 21st century, and one nation starts a battle with another nation because the latter was unwilling to follow a trade agreement, who do you think would be at fault?

Mr Yuan is basically saying that the USA would be right to invade/attack Canada if Toronto ever decided not to follow NAFTA.

After eight-captured Beijing in 1900, the Boxers were harsh reprisals and killings.













Eight Power Allied Forces occupied Beijing, foreign troops, together with the Qing authorities executed Boxer, Qing government yield to the invaders, together with the foreign troops killed the Boxers.
Power Allied Forces took the opportunity to any looting in Beijing.

·¢ÏÖÒ»×éÒåºÍÍű»Õòѹ±©Ê¬½ÖͷʵÕÕ£¡ ¨C ÌúѪÍø

While not as shamefull as the opium wars (Killed missionaries is a more decent casus belli than people wanting to abolish a dangerous poison), the Boxer rebellion and the conduct of the European/German force is something that shames me as a German.

the name itself is really nonsense. they weren't rebelling against the central authorities. hence they aren't rebels, they were endorse by them.

they were more like a militia vs foreign invaders.

This looks like the Eight Nation Alliance intervention in China circa 1900.

Western nations, intervening in other nation's affairs, to protect their ability to extract resources and protect trade monopoly, etc... etc...

China should re-double her efforts to not be embarrassed in the future in the event over a clash over Taiwan, Senkaku, or Spratly islands for example.

Naval expansion should be China's premier priority.

Originally Posted by Phead128

This looks like the Eight Nation Alliance intervention in China circa 1900.

Western nations, intervening in other nation's affairs, to protect their ability to extract resources and protect trade monopoly, etc... etc...

At the risk of getting into a very non-topic historical discussion, I think the Boxer Rebellion is a good example for the complexities of the motivations of the various parties in this Libya conflict. Western intervention in China in 1900 was justified: someone had to save the lives of the Westerners and hundreds of thousands of Chinese Christians in the Legation Quarters, Tienstin and elsewhere. But it would be foolish to say that the Eight Nations weren't out for what you might call "easy loot". The situation in Libya is similar. Coalition intervention was justified and has indeed saved many lives, but, it would be foolish to say that there is no "profit motive", both economic and political.

As for what Mr. T said, I think that Obama's initial hesitance to get involved was totally justified. After Iraq he'd be a fool to rush to get involved in another Arab nation, no matter what the circumstances.

On the military side of things, the rebel advance has stalled in the open desert somewhere east of Bin Jawad. I'd like to see the rebels send some of their columns of technicals into the desert and set up ambushes along the coast road, behind where the ostensible government front line is. That would make maximum use of their mobility, which is their greatest asset. They might even be able to catch some government artillery unawares.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

At the risk of getting into a very non-topic historical discussion, I think the Boxer Rebellion is a good example for the complexities of the motivations of the various parties in this Libya conflict. Western intervention in China in 1900 was justified: someone had to save the lives of the Westerners and hundreds of thousands of Chinese Christians in the Legation Quarters, Tienstin and elsewhere. But it would be foolish to say that the Eight Nations weren't out for what you might call "easy loot". The situation in Libya is similar. Coalition intervention was justified and has indeed saved many lives, but, it would be foolish to say that there is no "profit motive", both economic and political.

As for what Mr. T said, I think that Obama's initial hesitance to get involved was totally justified. After Iraq he'd be a fool to rush to get involved in another Arab nation, no matter what the circumstances.

On the military side of things, the rebel advance has stalled in the open desert somewhere east of Bin Jawad. I'd like to see the rebels send some of their columns of technicals into the desert and set up ambushes along the coast road, behind where the ostensible government front line is. That would make maximum use of their mobility, which is their greatest asset. They might even be able to catch some government artillery unawares.

Well, what will be really interesting is what the intervening powers do when rebels move into pro-Gaddaffi territory and either 1) encounter resistance from the local population, or 2) commit atrocities against the local population.

Do pro-Gaddaffi civilians count as civilians even if they become armed? Armed rebels really aren't civilians either. Even the blind can see that the whole intervention is about taking sides in a civil war and laying the groundwork for profits, not about protecting any civilians or human rights.

I am not going to get into a discussion about the Boxer Rebellion and the 8 Nation intervention in China except to say that the Western legations and Chinese converts to foreign organized religions (therefore to an extent pledging allegiance to foreign political entities) can definitely and rightly be considered invaders and collaborators.

Well the "Eight Nations" would be Gadaffi trying hold on to power by trying to kill off the Boxer Rebellion against their oppressive undemocratic rule. I'm sure Gaddafi also believes he's doing what he thinks is best for those he rules over. Just shows you the act isn't the crime. It all about who commits it and who's the victim.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

At the risk of getting into a very non-topic historical discussion, I think the Boxer Rebellion is a good example for the complexities of the motivations of the various parties in this Libya conflict. Western intervention in China in 1900 was justified: someone had to save the lives of the Westerners and hundreds of thousands of Chinese Christians in the Legation Quarters, Tienstin and elsewhere.

You know, there's a very simple, non-bloodshed alternative to military intervention in the face of the Boxer Rebellion: get your citizens out of China!

But of course, we all know that wouldn't happen, simply because they were too invested in the colonization of Qing. So, please, spare us all the "justified on humanitarian grounds" BS.

Originally Posted by solarz

You know, there's a very simple, non-bloodshed alternative to military intervention in the face of the Boxer Rebellion: get your citizens out of China!

But of course, we all know that wouldn't happen, simply because they were too invested in the colonization of Qing. So, please, spare us all the "justified on humanitarian grounds" BS.

Exactly, it is stupid to even suggest it was justified for a military intervention in face of Boxer Rebellion.

Its pure greed, colonialism. The 8 nations were just looking for an excuse to invade. That's all.

Originally Posted by solarz

You know, there's a very simple, non-bloodshed alternative to military intervention in the face of the Boxer Rebellion: get your citizens out of China!
.

What about the Chinese Christians?

Originally Posted by bladerunner

What about the Chinese Christians?

That would be an internal matter for the Qing government themselves to handle. Besides, considering the fact that western powers just helped put down a massive Chinese Christian rebellion some 40 years ago, "helping Chinese Christians" is a ridiculously laughable pretext.

Back on topic:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...69b1927b97.371

The US is considering arming a group that may very well have direct ties to al-Qaeda. It would be supremely ironic if those weapons then find their way into Afghanistan or Iraq.