SinoNet: Fw: MCLC: textbook article translation

[Jacqueline Winter]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Kirk Denton <denton.2 at osu.edu>
To: mclc at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:14:40 PM
Subject: MCLC: textbook article translation

MCLC LIST
From: kirk (denton.2 at osu.edu)
Subject: textbook article translation
******************************************************

Here's an English translation of the Yuan Weishi article that sparked the
Bingdian controversy. The original can be found at:

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060126_2.htm

Kirk 

=====================================================

Source: EastSouthWestNorth: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060126_1.htm

Modernization and History Textbooks. By Yuan Weishi (Zhongshan University
professor) 

In the 21st century, the Chinese people are facing the inexorable
globalization trend. At the same time, the modernization of China has
reached a key moment In this age, the system will be the most important
factor that determines the success of the development of the nation and its
people, and the states of mind of the citizens are also important for their
personal development as well that of the nation and society as a whole.
 
In the late 1970's, after going through the three disasters known as the
Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution,
people have found out bitterly that the root of these disaster includes: "We
grew up drinking the wolf's milk." More than twenty years have elapsed. I
happened to have glanced through the middle-school history textbooks
recently, and I was stunned to find: our youth are continuing to drink the
wolf's milk! 
 
The Chinese people have familiar sayings such as "Use history as example"
and "If you remember the past, you will have a guide for the future." The
modern history of China contains so much in humiliations, setbacks and war
experiences one after another, and it should be an educational experience!
We have the duty to tell the true history to our youth so that they will
never forget. This is the required path to turn them into modern citizens.
If these innocent children swallow fake pills, then they will live with
prejudices for their own lives and go down the wrong path.
 
This is the moment when we have to examine the problem about our history
textbooks. We start with the discussion of a few concrete historical
incidents. 

Was the burning of the Yuanming Garden unavoidable?
 
The burning of the Yuanming Garden was an unforgivable crime committed by
the British and French invasion forces. How did things reach this point?
More than 140 years have passed, and we should calmly consider the rights
and wrongs of both sides to draw lessons, so that the people of different
nations can live together in peace. This incident was one of the horrific
outcomes of the Second Opiu War. The Third Volume of Chinese History edited
by the People's Educational Publishers is commonly used as the textbook in
the first year of middle school in the nine-year free education system. This
is how this war was narrated.


1. The causes of the war.
 

This textbook said: "In March 1856, the French Catholic priest Auguste
Chapdelaine sneaked into the Xilin district of Guangxi to cause mischief and
was put to death by the local officials. This was the so-called 'Chapdelaine
incident.' Later on, France used that as an excuse to initiate a war of
aggression along with England. In October of the same year, the Guangzhou
navy arrested the pirates and sailors on the Chinese commercial ship The
Arrow. The English consul interfered by claiming that the Arrow was an
English ship and demanding that China release all the arrestees while
apologizing and compensating the English. The governor of Guangdong/Guangxi
Ye Mingchen did not want to magnify the matter, so he released the arrested
sailors but he refused to apologize. This was the so-called 'Arrow
incident.' In October 1856, the English initiated the war by bombarding
Guangzhou. Thus began the Second Opium War."

The description of the Arrow incident was basically consistent with the
historical facts. As for the killing of the French Catholic priest August
Chapdelaine, this is still a confusing mess. Chapdelaine was executed on
February 29, 1856 by the Guangxi Xilin district substitute mayor Zhang
Fengming. When the French consul inquired, Zhang Fengming insisted that no
such thing had happened. This caused the Guangxi inspector general and the
Guangdong/Guangxi governor to believe it to be true up until early 1858, and
that was how they replied to the French consul as well as the central
government. 

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.

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.

Secondly, according to the Treaty of Wangsha: "All trade and customs matters
may be modified according to circumstances. The two nations should negotiate
fairly in 12 years' time." The Treaty of Huangpo also said: "If there are
articles that require modification ... they should wait until 12 years
before negotiating with China again." Modifying commercial clauses should be
a simple diplomatic matter, but the Qing government delayed again and again
and increased the contradictions between the two sides.

As for the reason why the war was started, knowledgeable people at the time
have thought about why. According to insider Shi Fucheng who said in sorrow:
"The English originally wanted to enter the city to meet the officials in
order to increase communication. But the people of Guangzhou provoked them
again and again and Ye Mingchen made mistake after mistake and gave away the
city ... since the English knew that China was hapless, they joined with the
French, Russian and American gun boats to sail up north into Dagu to block
Chinese marine commerce and forced a treaty. The people of Guangzhou had
been irate at the previous negotiation and was therefore determined to bar
the foreigners from entering and rejected every request over twenty years.
The loss of Dagu and the Treaty of Tianjin were the results. Looking at it
today, it was pointless." In the late Qing era, Zeng Guofan, Li Hongchang,
Feng Guifen, Guo Songdao and others kept reminding each other "do not let
the small things create huge trouble" and that included the lesson learned
by the argument over letting the foreigners enter Guangzhou.

In another part of the People's Republic of China, the history textbooks for
middle-school in Hong Kong are much better edited than those in the
mainland. They summarized the cause of the war in four points: 1. The issue
of foreigners entering the city; 2. the problem about extending the treaty;
3. The Arrow incident; 4. the Father Chapdelaine affair. This presentation
matches the historical reality and does not damage national interests. It
also helps the younger generation to calmly analyze the historical problem.
It shows that the editors were qualified historians. The puzzle is: Why
couldn't the mainland colleagues learn to do the same?

 
2. The course of the war.

In 1858, Dagu was seized. The English and French invaders were outside the
gates of Tianjin. The English, French, Russians and Americans forced the
Qing government to sign the Treaty of Tianjin. Although many rights were
conceded, the problem was solved. The two sides agreed to exchange the
letter of approval in Beijing next year in order to complete the legal
procedure. Had both sides followed the agreement, the second invasion
(culminating in the burning of the Yuanming Garden) by the English and
French armies could have been avoided.

But nobody expected the purely procedural final step would lead to
unanticipated developments that brought even greater disasters! The textbook
said: "In 1959, the English and French envoys led their respective fleets
north to Daguhou in order to exchange documents in Beijing. The Qing
government insisted that the treaty envoys land at Beitong and proceed to
Bejing through Tianjin, and they also requested the armed personnel on the
warships not to disembark. The English and French envoys counted on their
military power and insisted that they will land at Daguhou up the White
River to get to Beijing. They took their fleet into Daguhou rudely. The
Chinese batteries at Daguhou opened fire against the invaders. Four enemy
ships were sunk and six were damaged. The remaining three ships hoisted
white flags and fled. The people of Dagu brought food to the defenders
during the battle and exhibited a high degree of patriotism." According to
the pen of the editor, this was a patriotic and heroic paean in which the
principal actors were the soldiers and the common people. But there are
plenty of doubts upon further thought.

Based upon the results, this battle was an obvious mistake. The next year,
the English and French forces invaded again and occupied Beijing, burning
the Yuanming Garden during the process. The new Treaty of Peking not only
stipulated that the original Treaty of Tianjin was valid, but there were
additional penalties. The compensation to England and France went
respectively from the original 4 and 2 million taels to 8 million taels
each; the Kowloon district was conceded; French missionaries were permitted
to preach freely in China and "French missionaries can rent or buy land in
all the provinces and build at will." This would lay the groundwork for the
continuous disputes in latter years. Would it be better for China if the
battle had not taken place?

It is logical for people to follow up with the question: is it all that
important which route the foreign envoys took to reach Beijing, to the point
of going to battle? Was there any serious negotiations over this difference
in opinion? Did the Chinese soldiers open fire on their own or upon orders?
If the former is the case, that this was a serious mistake that violated
military discipline, and so it cannot be a patriotic and heroic act. If the
latter is the case, then what kind of order was issued?

In reviewing the historical data, this was no act of patriotism and heroism.
It was a major crime committed by the ignorant Emperor Xianfeng and Lord
Sengelinqin. The difference in opinion was not about the choice of which
route to enter Beijing as the textbook says. Rather, they wanted the English
and French envoys to take a long detour to enter Tianjin. At the time, Lord
Sengelinqin's aid Guo Songdao wrote in his diary: On April 10, 1859, "Prince
Yi arrived at camp ... he said that he carried special orders from the
Emperor: if the foreigners come and refuse to follow the rules, you should
attack them by surprise. You say that these were just armed civilians, not
soldiers. You are to act properly otherwise, and delay all negotiations.
Prince Yi was muddleheaded, and Lord Sen had to review it with him again and
again. So the foreigners will be made to enter at Beitong and then detour
around to Tianjin ... the debate went on again and again before the decision
was made. The details are attached."

After the Treaty of Peking was established, Guo gave more details about the
situation at the time: "The foreign disaster began with Lord Sen's attempt
to attack by deception. Last year, there were more than a dozen orders from
the Emperor to get them to stay outside the river to await instructions.
When the foreign ships entered the inner river instead, Lord Sen did not
send any messenger with instruction. Instead, the soldiers were told to
remove their uniforms and acted as armed civilians to attack." Zeng Guofan
told his aides: "In the ninth year of Xianfeng, the foreigners came to
exchange the treaty documents. Lord Sengelinqin set up a trap and attacked
them, and the nation celebrated. In the tenth year, the foreigners returned
... the capital fell and the nation mourned. I say that Lord Sen caused this
defeat and he ought to kill himself in apology to the people." What they
said was identical to the report by the English envoy Bruce. The English and
French navy arrived on June 16 and received a notice on the morning of June
25 from governor Shi Fu. But by that time, the military action had already
started. These historical material can be summarized in the following
points. 

1. Emperor Xianfeng decided that under certain circumstances, the soldiers
can pretend to be armed civilians to launch a "surreptitious" attack on the
foreign devils. At the same time, he issued more than a dozen orders that
the foreigners must receive notice beforehand.
 
2. Lord Sengelinqin faithfully carried out the plan to launch a
'surreptitious' attack, but he gave no notice beforehand. He also resolutely
rejected the advice of his aides. He was also the person who came up with
the plan to ask the foreigners to land at Beitong and make the detour to
Tianjin. 

3. Faced with this disaster that brought national shame, the more astute
officials such as Zeng Guofan, Guo Songdao, Wu Rulun (as well Li Hongchang,
Feng Guifen) made severe criticisms and parables about what happened.


But the most shocking is this: In the 90's of the twentieth century, our
textbooks are still singing the tune of Emperor Xianfeng and Lord
Sengelinqin, with the only difference in replacing the 'armed civilians' by
soldiers! 

At this point, we can answer the question about whether the burning of
Yuanming Garden can be avoided. Faced with the pressure from the powerful
enemies, the weaker Qing empire rationally should follow the existing
treaties carefully in order to avoid frontal conflicts. They needed to buy
time to reform and develop themselves. But the government and gentry at that
time were swayed by extreme emotions, and chose to break the treaties on
minor points and thereby led to a great disaster. If the Qing government's
decision-making class and the local governments were not so ignorant and
stubborn, this disaster could have been averted. But the knowledge of the
government officials and the dictatorial decision-making method were built
up over a long history and could not be changed overnight. The fact that
this was an invasion meant that the foreigners could not be a civilized
force. Thus, this disaster was also unavoidable.

Was this a patriotic act or an uncivilized act?

Let us look at how the textbook's authors evaluate the Boxer rebels.

The textbook correctly disclosed that "after the United Armies of the Eight
Nations entered Bejing, arson, murders and looting was committed"; "when the
United Armies of the Eight Nations invaded Tianjin ... the Russians
committed the shocking massacre at Hailanpao. The Russian army also forcibly
took over China's Jiangdong Liushisitun and butchered the local residents."
Apart from the above, everything else was error-filled.

1. The textbook did not mention anything about how the Boxers were hostile
to modern civilization or they blindly rejected foreigners and all foreign
civilizations through extremely ignorant ways.

The Boxers cut down telegraph lines, they destroyed schools, they demolished
railroad tracks, they burned foreign merchandise, they murdered foreigners
and all Chinese who had any connection of foreign culture ... any person or
thing that had some foreign flavor had to be totally annihilated. Even if
the Boxers made great contributions towards "supporting the Qing government
and destroying the foreigners," you should not be avoiding those
anti-civilization and anti-humanity mistakes. Besides, these criminal
actions brought unspeakable suffering to the nation and its people! These
are all facts that everybody knows, and it is a national shame that the
Chinese people cannot forget. Yet our children's compulsory textbooks will
not speak about it.

The textbooks also spoke about the destruction of the railroad tracks. But
what did it say? "In June 1900 ... more than 2,000 invaders from the Eight
Nations led by British navy commander Moore went from Dagu through Tianjin
towards Beijing. The Boxers destroyed the railroad track from Tianjin to
Beijing and then attacked the invading force. The invading force was
surrounded near Langfang by the Boxers and suffered many casualties before
retreating back to Tianjin." On this basis, the destruction of the railroad
track was just an unavoidable act required to repel the invaders. But what
actually happened? 

On May 28, 1900, the local governor Yu Lu telegraphed the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs: "On the evening of May 27, we learned that the Boxer
bandits have destroyed the railroad tracks from Zhuozhou to Liulihe. This
morning, all railroad stations, bridges and buildings belonging to the
railroad department along the 100 mile stretch from Liulihe to Changxindian
have been attacked and set on fire by the Boxer bandits." At the same time,
other emergency reports flooded in: "The telegraph is now down ... the line
to Changxindian is down; the line from Liulihe to Zhuozhou is also cut off
by the bandits and all telegraph messages are stopped." They destroyed these
equipment solely because these things came from the outside, and not because
there were unavoidable actions that had to taken to stop the invaders. At
the same time, these activities occurred everywhere and they were not
infrequent actions that took place in isolated areas. That is to say, this
was intentional destruction of property, and not what some historians
credited as heroic measures to resist the invaders. From the timing, Moore's
army was forced to retreat back to Tianjin between June 10 and June 26.
Prior to this, the urgent reports from everywhere about the destruction of
the railroad and telegraph lines, the burning of the train stations and the
looting of property had already been coming in. The Boxers burned, killed,
looted and deliberately destroyed modern civilization first, and then the
United Armies of the Eight Nations came. This chronology is the historical
truth and cannot be revised.

2. The textbooks did not condemn the Qing dynasty and the Boxers for killing
the innocent and their barbaric and cruel crimes in burning, killing and
looting. 

The most representative case is what the Shanxi official Yu Xian did. On
June 27, he burned down the foreign hospital in Taiyuan. He lured the
foreigners in the province to stay together in one place. At the time, there
were 211 women, some of whom were old but most of them between 5 to 30 years
old, in the church ... on June 13, he personally led the troops to the place
where the foreigners were gathered. The foreigners attempted to resist
arrest, but the troops overpowered them and arrested 44 foreigners as well
as 17 other Chinese converts. All were brought to the marketplace and
executed"; "in Shouyang county, Qin Xingui arrested seven foreign
troublemakers and brought them there for execution. That night, the Northern
Gate church was set on fire by the Boxers. There are no signs of any foreign
churches left in the provincial capital city." At the time, the newspapers
even reported: "The westerner at Yujin heard about the troubles in the
capital, and they asked official Yu Xian for protection. But he told them to
gather together and then he butchered them; he was personally responsible
for killing several people with his own hands."

The actions of Yu Xian was not isolated. All these obstinate regressives
were the inheritors of the most retrogressive and barbaric elements of
traditional culture. There were numerous examples in which these obstinate
bureaucrats caused trouble. For example, the Hebei province official Dai Lan
was ordered to "direct" the Boxers with Dai Xun and Gang Yi, and his cruelty
was no less than Yu Xian's: "When the trouble began in the capital, Dai Lan
let the Boxer bandits enter the large houses and conduct searches. If they
find carpets and other stuff, the occupants were regarded as believers and
executed. Not even royal relatives were spared."

Let us look at what the Boxers did. Previously, it has been pointed out that
we cannot regard all those people who participated in the Boxer organization
should be regarded as bandits because some of them were just blind
followers. But there are quite a few bandits and hooligans there. Overall
during the Boxer incident between June 24 and July 24 of 2000, 231
foreigners were killed, of which 53 were children. Most of them died at the
hands of the Boxers. As for the Chinese believers who were killed, there is
no known number. Most of them were killed by the Boxers, and others by the
government soldiers. In Shanxi province alone, more than 5,700 Catholic
followers were killed. In Liaoning province, "more than one thousand
believers." "In Heibei province, killings and arson occurred in every single
county. In one county alone, between 1,000 to 2,000 were killed." Even in
Zhejiang province, "looting and burning of the homes of believers occurred
more than 1,000 times."

"The maximum damage" occurred in Beijing, where there were many records left
behind by the victims. On June 18, 1900, "the burning and destruction began
in midday and the fire was still going at night ... if you don't like
someone, you accuse them of being believers and you murder their entire
family. The number of dead was more than 100,000. Most people died from
knifes and spears, and their bodies were cut up. Even babies not more than a
month old were slaughtered. There was no feeling of humanity left." "The
French catholic church was located inside Xian Gate. Gang Yi supervised the
soldiers to attack the church, but they could not breach the defense. The
Boxers did not dare advance so they ended up shouting a lot. Then they
turned around and headed towards Yongding Gate. There were about 70 rural
villagers going to the market. These people were seized and accused of being
from the White Lotus Sect because they carried some children toys and
clothes. Under interrogation, they had nothing to confess to. So they were
all executed in the marketplace. One woman was executed while still holding
her child in her arms ... Yu Ding tried to appeal on their behalf by saying:
'There has to be evidence for subversion. Old men and weak women are not
subversives; toys are not weapons for subversion ...' But it was too late as
the sentence had been carried out already."

On June 16, "at 9am, the Boxers set fire to the Deji Pharmacy at the
Dasanlan district. The fire moved on to the food stores, the lamp street,
the Guanyin temple, the jewel market ... and more then 4,000 shops were
burned down. The fire did not stop until daylight. The bandits forbade the
fire brigade to fight the fire with water." Thus, the most prosperous and
busy section of Beijing was destroyed in one day. Overall, "at its peak,
there were more than four million living in Beijing. When the Boxer chaos
came, the bandits came and looted the city with no one spared. The market
was deserted, and even wild animals can be seen roaming in broad daylight.
The formerly busy streets were like graveyards." This was one of the results
of the so-called Boxer "revolution."

At first, the contradictions between the people versus the preachers and the
converts drew some sympathy. But what they did later far exceeded anything
to do with conflicts with outside religions. Afterwards all the way through
the founding of the republic, the consensus opinion of the officials and
citizens was that this organization should be properly regarded and defined
as the Boxer bandits.

3. The most incomprehensible thing is that there is no mention of the fact
that this calamity was brought about by the autocracy of the Empress
Dowager. 

When the Boxers first emerged, Yuan Shikai presented a report to the
Emperor: "They deceive the people by claiming to be able to dodge and repel
bullets and cannonballs. But whenever they fought against the militia, the
Christians and the soldiers, many of them die by gunfire and they dissolve
away quickly ... they attempt to sway people by claiming to want to destroy
the foreigners. Yet between last Spring and Summer, they robbed the homes of
more than 1,100 believers as well as more than 200 ordinary citizens in
Caozhou and Jining. Between Autumn and Winter in Dongyang and Jinan, they
robbed the homes of more then 600 believers and more than 100 ordinary
citizens. There were also many cases of kidnapping for ransom. These people
are no different from bandits. Believers suffered at their hands, but so do
many ordinary citizens." Certain other more senior officials than Yuan
Shikai (such as the Lord of the Northern Sea and the Hebei province governor
Yu Lu) also offered similar opinions. But the Empress Dowager refused to
listen. So the more perceptive officials can only maintain their silence,
while other officials of bad character ran with the trend and looked for
favors (such as Yu Lu).

So a weak country which could not even handle a "tiny little country" such
as Japan six years ago wanted to simultaneously declare war against eleven
nations including Japan! Sixty years after the "International Law" reached
China, they wanted to send troops to attack the foreign consulates in China!

To decide between war and peace, from June 16, 1900, the Empress Dowager
held a four-day conference with the senior government officials. At the
conference, many officials pleaded with the Empress Dowager not to listen to
the evil cultists, not to assault the consulates and not to declare war
first. The Foreign Ministry officials Yuan Changhu and Xu Jingdeng wrote in
a joint petition: "Since ancient history, when two nations go to war, they
do not kill innocent travelers. In international law, the consul is a major
official of the country. To hold the consul in contempt is to hold the
country in contempt. If the orders are sent for the bandits to attack the
consulates and kill their officials, the countries will regard this as a
huge humiliation and they will united together to seek revenge. For one
country to fight against all the other countries is not a matter of winning
or losing; it is about keeping or losing the entire country as a result."
But the Empress Dowager not only did not accept these obvious commonsense
wisdom, but she threw a fit and had those two officials executed!

At the same time, most of the crimes such as Yu Xin killing the foreigners
occurred after the order to declare war on the other nations on June 21 and
the order to the local governors to kill the foreigners on June 24.
Therefore, the head criminal is the Empress Dowager, and people like Yu Xin
and Dai Yi were just brutal executioners.

4. The textbook is not serious about handling certain historical materials.

"The Boxers arose from Shandong and by March, the earth was red everywhere.
All the children took up knives to become heroes who defend the nation." The
textbook highlighted this folksong and said that this was a "Boxer
folksong." But this author has never been able to find anything that
supports this after reading all the existing Boxer flyers and documents.
Usually, the so-called oral tales from such investigations are created by
others later on, and are not trustworthy.

The textbook also said: "In Beijing's Dongdan Xibiao Hutong, there is a
temple of Yu Qian. In order to learn from Yu Qian's patriotic spirit, the
Boxer entered the city in April 2000 and then set up their altar there." All
academic viewpoints should reject unfounded assertions. Dai Yi, Dai Lan and
other Manchurian lords who brought calamity to the country and its people
also had Boxer altars set up inside their homes. So what were the Boxers
trying to learn from them?

In our country, apart from the aforementioned textbook published by the
People's Educational Publisher, there is another set of textbooks used in
the coastal regions. This is known as the coastal edition, and it contains
even more factual errors in places and the notion of right versus wrong is
even more muddled. 

For example, it describing the Boxer incident, it added these sentences:
"After mid-June, the Boxer masses began to surround the Xishiku church and
the foreign consulate areas occupied by the foreign invaders. The Qing
government secretly delivered food, vegetables, wine and fruits to the
besieged invaders." Every single sentence is wrong!

First, we ask: Is the Xishiku church "a site occupied by the invaders"?
Prior to the Boxer incident, this was just an ordinary French Catholic
church. There was nothing to prove that it is "a site occupied by the
invaders." During the Boxer uprising, from June 13, 1900, most of the
churches and residences in Beijing were destroyed in a few days, together
with several thousand civilian homes and shops. The surviving Xishiku church
and the Dongjiao consulate area provided shelter for a great many foreign
survivors and Chinese believers. The survivors inside this church could not
count on the Qing government to maintain normal social order and they were
fighting back to avoid being massacred. There is no way to find fault either
by reason or law. To say that this church is "a site occupied by the
invaders" is irresponsible speech.
 
Next, the attack on the Dongjiao area was willed by the Empress Dowager. The
main assault force was Dong Fuxiang's army and Rong Lu's army. They
committed the crime and the Boxers were just helping them. To gloss over
this fact and to make out as if the Boxers was a spontaneous patriotic
action not only distorts the historical truth but it also conceals the fact
that the Qing government had trampled all over international law.
Furthermore, the attack against the Xishiku church and the consulate area
revealed the ignorance and brutality of the autocracy and its autocrat. If
this cannot even be confronted in the late 90's of the twentieth century,
then this represents ignorance of international law while praising a
national shame and forgetting the duty to oppose the feudal autocracy!

Now look at the second sentence. The Qing government did sent daily supplies
to the besieged foreign consulates. This was done publicly and so that
"secretly" was not based on historical data. At the time, some more alert
officials in the Qing government repeatedly requested protection of foreign
diplomats and citizens in accordance with international law. The various
governors of the southeastern provinces actually publicly stated that they
will not follow the "false order" after the June 21 declaration of war. In
the face of these pressures, the Empress Dowagers backed off and besides she
also wanted some space left for maneuver. No matter what, the Qing
government still had some people inside who had not completely lost their
rationality and conscience. But to demean their actions with respect to that
of the Boxers is clearly inappropriate.

Again, the Hong Kong textbook presents a more complete picture of the Boxer
incident and the United Armies of the Eight Nations. They denounced the
Boxers for "large-scale xenophobia, murdering preachers and believers
including even those who own foreign books or wear eyeglasses, destroying
everything, burning churches, cutting down telegraph lines, destroying
railroad tracks." "A secretary in the Japanese embassy and the German consul
were killed." But they also pointed out that "the discipline of the United
Armies was very poor and they burned, looted and killed at will. Among them,
the Russians, the Germans and the Indian soldiers of the English contingent
were particularly brutal." They analyzed in detail the background which
allowed the Boxers to rise: 1. Nationalism. 2. Poverty. 3. Invasion of the
foreign powers. 4. Frequent occurrence of cases concerning religion. They
also covered the contents of the Treaty of Xinchou and its deep effect on
China then and later. Any unprejudiced person will agree that this textbook
contained the true history.
 
The reason why such phenomena arise is intimately connected to the
humiliation and harm that China has endured for so long. Faced with this
reality, there can be two states of mind.

The invasion of the west completely changed the historical path of China.
What happened afterwards was the breakdown of a venerable empire and the
people were reduced to struggling between life and death. Naturally, the
people blamed their state of being on the "foreign devils"; and they have
also blamed the corruption and ignorance of the rulers. The unceasing point
of debate for which consensus is difficult to achieve is: is the principal
source of this situation internal or external?

Actually, there is a question from a completely different angle: why did
this situation not change for so long? If someone says the imperialists are
too brutal, then this is saying nothing. After long-term, complicated and
repeated conflicts, it is possible to set up a 'just' order in the
international system that will meet the long-term interests of most people
and most nations. Before this condition appears, there won't a savior
parachuting out of the sky to defend your national interests on your behalf.
The problem can only be solved by facing this reality and figuring out how
to get out of the situation.

The overseas experience proved this: when underdeveloped countries and areas
(colonies and semi-colonies) change their development status, the only path
to change is to follow the western powers and undertake the total
modernization of social life. The key to success is national reform. This is
a total transformation of the social system. For those countries that have
their own culture and are historically resistant against outside cultures,
this is a very difficult process. For China, from the Opium War to the new
politics at the beginning of the 20th century, about 60 years was spent on
deciding whether the nation wants to reform! As for the reform process, it
is an even more complicated issue to decide between using revolutionary
methods or gradual reforms. But one thing is for certain: it is necessary to
find a peaceful international environment to win enough time for national
reform and construction. If this is more or less right, then we have to look
back at the Boxer incident and see how it was a reactionary affair that ran
in the completely opposite direction of social progress. Furthermore,
butchering foreigners is anti-humanitarian and anti-civilization, as are the
violent acts that are extremely stupid and dangerous to the interests of
China. 

There was a popular judgment over many years that has been used to defend
the Boxers: the Boxers avoided the partitioning of China. The historian Li
Shiyue who passed away in 1989 refuted that argument in detail. The 450
million tael in compensation (which is equivalent to the total national
income for six years) was like a huge bloodsucking syringe plunged into the
chest of the Chinese people. It gave Tsarist Russia the excuse to carry out
the Heilanpao and Jiangdong Liushisitun massacres in which more than 7,000
Chinese were killed and all of the land of Jiangdong lost and the Russians
entering northeastern China. The number of war casualties in the Huabei
region was inestimable. Afterwards, the partitioning conspiracies did not
end: the English army invaded Tibet and occupied Lhasa; the Germans sent
their gunboats into the Dongting lake and wanted to take a lease of the
shores of Dongting and Panyang lakes; the English wanted to lease the
Zhoushan archipelago as 'compensation.'

Some people like to quote the saying of the German Waldersee who was the
commander of the United Armies of the Eight Nations: "No matter it is
Europe, America, Japan or any country, they don't have the brains or
military power to rule over one-quarter of the population of the world. So
it is a bad move to partition China." This proved that the Boxers stopped
the partitioning of China. Mr. Li Shiyue spoke well: "Waldersee's personal
feelings do not represent the sentiments of Germany. The Germany Kaiser had
always assumed that partitioning was the foundation of his China policy, and
the aforementioned demand to 'lease' the shores of Dongting and Panyang
lakes are the proof. The partitioning of China did not occur only because
there were contradictions among the imperialists."

If the vista is opened up, then the problem becomes clearer. People have
already pointed out: the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, the Reform Movement
of 1898 and the Boxer incident is an uninterrupted flow of history. To be
more precise, the Sino-Japanese War exposed the corrupt nature of the Qing
empire and many intellectuals woke up from their dreams of many decades.
They realized that it was a fundamental error for the self-renewal movement
not to broach the basic issue of "freedom versus non-freedom." This was the
first self-discovery step by the government and the reform movement advanced
as a result. The key for the rise and decline of China now depended on
whether it chooses to reform thoroughly in the manner of the West or refuse
to reform and stick to the tradition. This is the key to understanding this
piece of history. Unfortunately, the Reform Movement after the devastating
defeat of the Sino-Japanese War failed. This reform movement had wanted to
follow the West but it suffered a setback. In the Boxer incident, the
counter-revolutionary current reached it peak for the traditionalists. In
other words, the Boxer incident reflected the continued decline of China as
an enslaved subject country from the outside and the pervasive ruin of its
people from the inside.

In 2000-2001, there was an international incident that drew the attention of
the Chinese people. That was the problem of the Japanese school textbooks. A
textbook edited by rightwing elements attempted to cover up the historical
truth and deny that Japan committed crimes during the invasions. This
aroused the Chinese and Korean nations and peoples to protest vigorously.
This was a struggle on behalf of justice and it was the fourth time in the
past twenty years. In 1982, 1986 and 1996, there were newly revised
textbooks that distort history and aroused public anger inside and outside
Japan. This chronic ill in Japanese thought has given many people a deep
impression: the Japanese lack the will to be contrite. People asked further:
Why is there the phenomenon of refusing the accept any guilt? Is this a flaw
of the Japanese people?

When you look at the aforementioned problems in the Chinese textbooks, a
logical conclusion is that our modern history have similar kinds of
problems. Of course, it is different because Japan was the invader whereas
China was being invaded. But the two have something in common: the
mainstream culture in society lacks deep reflection on its contemporary
history.  

Since the beginning of the 20th century, Chinese intellectuals have
advocated remaking the national character time and again. These vanguards
meant well, but they did not ask: What are the main factors that determine
national character? It can be said that the national character is the
characteristics of the thoughts and behaviors of the citizens. All people
evolve from cannibals. As a group, the deciding factor on the degree of
civilization and barbarity is the strength of how the cultural tradition and
system can purify themselves.

The humiliation from the insults and injuries gave the Chinese people a new
momentum in thinking. This is shown over the long-term in the form of a
specious concept: since the "foreign devils" are the invaders, the Chinese
are justified and praised in whatever they do. This is required by
patriotism. 

The current history textbooks are using this concept to guide thinking. It
is obvious that we must love our country. But there are two ways to love our
country. One way is to inflame nationalistic passions. Traditional Chinese
culture had deeply ingrained ideas such as "Chinese and foreigners are
different" and "if you not my kind, then your loyalties must be opposite to
mine." Our thinking is still poisoned by them today. The latest edition is
this: if there is a conflict between China and others, then China must be
right; patriotism means opposing the other powers and the foreigners. In the
selection and presentation of historical materials, we will only use those
that favor China whether they are true or false. The other choice is this:
we analyze everything rationally; if it is right, it is right and if it is
wrong, it is wrong; calm, objective and wholly regard and handle all
conflicts with the outside.

The basic spirit of modernization is rationality. If we accept this basic
viewpoint, then we should lead the Chinese people down this path and let
rationality and tolerance become the national character of the Chinese
people. Then the peoples of the world and their cultures can co-exist in
harmony. In an era of rapid globalization, conflict of interest among
corporations and nations are unavoidable. Rational understanding and
resolving conflicts is the best choice for any nation or corporation. If
anything related to the outside is always about "anti-imperialism" and
"anti-hegemony," then the matter is bound to be bungled.

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!

In the end, this is still the poisonous residue of the vulgarization of
revolution.  

We must wake up and see that in the social domain, the true revolution is
one that causes the system to be revolutionized. The Celestial Kingdom of
Peace and the Boxers do not fit this requirement. These distortions actually
vulgarize the revolution and there will be a price to be paid later on.

You should not underestimate the consequences of this mis-education. It is
against commonsense and rationality to distort the historical truth in the
name of the "revolution" and the direct ill effects of praising the Boxers
were exposed during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Guard setting fire to
the British consulate is the replica of the Boxers' action; the mania to
eliminate all foreign things in the "Anti-Four Olds," "Anti-Imperialism" and
"Anti-Revisionism" campaigns had the same logic as the Boxers' desire to
destroy the foreigners.

The logic presented in the above textbooks is no different. Their common
points are: 1. The current Chinese culture is superior and unmatched. 2.
Outside culture is evil and corrodes the purity of the existing culture. 3.
We should or could use political power or the dictatorship of the mob to
violently erase all the evil in the field of cultural thinking. To use these
kinds of logic in order to quietly exert a subtle influence on our children
is an unforgivable harm no matter what the objective intent was.

In order to cultivate modern citizens with rational thoughts based upon the
rule of law for the modernization project, now is the moment to correct
those errors.