The Chinese Boxer Rebellion Was A Failed Revolution History Essay

Published: 2020-07-09 06:01:07
1794 words
7 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: History

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

Any basic enquiry into the apprehension of the Chinese Revolution ” would trip an unfastened argument to a controversial twine of complex events, viz. the Opium Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, the Boxer Rebellion, the Xinhai Revolution, the Chinese Revolution of 1949 and in conclusion the Cultural Revolution. Undoubtedly, the success of the Chinese revolution as an entireness lies embedded in every turbulent and dramatic event which denotes that revolution, or at the really least China ‘s revolution is better understood as a long term radical procedure ” ( KrejA?i 1994: 7 ; Tanter and Midlarsky 1967: 267 ) . Complications arise when up till today, no individual cosmopolitan theory of revolution which justifiably explains all signifiers of revolution exist ( Freeman 1972: 358 ) . What constitutes certain events to be tagged as a revolution ” while others are demonized as a rebellion ” ? This paper seeks to reason that the Boxer Rebellion was so a failed revolution, but a revolution however and was termed a rebellion ” due to political dockets ( Dunn 1989: 70 ) .
The battalion of different attacks one could see in the application of certain events to be radical or non, appears to be improbably subjective. Freeman knowingly notes that the figure of revolutions that took topographic point in France between 1789 and 1799 could run from zero to nine, depending on the attack one wishes to follow when placing revolutions ( 1972: 359 ) . This does non imply that radical theoreticians are light-minded in their attitude towards analysing revolutions but demark different attacks towards their ain ideal of a echt revolution. I shall be repeating this point by exemplifying cardinal constructs within Karl Marx ‘s and Chalmers Johnson ‘s theories of revolution in head and the Boxer rebellion as my background.
A Marxist positions revolutions as a merchandise of resistless historical forces, which culminate in a battle between middle class and the labor ” ( cited in Tanter and Midlarsky 1967: 264 ) . However, the Boxer rebellion was a clang between peasantry and sectarian elements from the Boxers cult against aliens and Christians ( Wakeman 1977: 209 ) . Under the Marxist model, the Boxer rebellion is cursed to stay as a rebellion ” . Who were these mystical Drawerss ” that finally had the rebellion named after them? Academicians are still divided as to the original roots and the existent purposes of this organisation ( Wakeman 1977: 208-209 ) . Joseph Esherick notes that there were in fact two separate Boxer traditions ( citied in Harrell and Perry 1982: 298 ) . In southwesterly Shandong, the Boxers began as a conservative self-defense group lead by land proprietors and rich provincials to protect their land from brigands. While in northwesterly Shandong, the Drawerss were ordinary common people who practiced a kind of classless regulation where they fundamentally manage themselves. Harrell and Perry note sectarian motions like the Boxers, do non possess a doctrinal component which is passively rebellious ( 1982: 294-296 ) . The Boxers were fundamentally provincials who grouped together for the intent of their ain self-preservation.
Would Marxism be able explicate the Boxer Rebellion? In his book, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in China, Manabendra Nath Roy, an Indian Comintern agent in China concluded the Taiping Revolt to be the first stage of a Marxist businessperson democratic revolution and the 2nd phase was none other than the Boxer rebellion ( cited in Fairbank 1949: 279 ) . Fairbank argues that this enterprise to use Marxist forms dogmatically into Chinese society is baseless without a more concrete survey of Chinese societal and cultural facets ( 1949: 282 ) . A superficial application of Marxist theories into the Chinese radical model imposes Western category construction ” and a battalion of societal and economical factors which would hold existed really otherwise in Chinese society than. Ultimately, a true Marxist revolution is an economical revolution and non a societal revolution. Therefore, the Boxer rebellion would non be considered a echt revolution ” if we chose to see it under a rigorous Marxist attack.
However, if we are to accept Chalmers Johnson ‘s definition of a revolution which he identifies four key factors ; societal alterations, successful or unsuccessful, affecting force and refering the rules of distributive justness prevailing in society ” , the Boxer rebellion would absolutely suit in this paradigm as a revolution ” ( cited in Freeman 1972: 345 ) . Social alteration was evident during the preliminary of the Boxer rebellion in 1898 as China as a whole was under a changeless onslaught of societal turbulences such as the Opium Wars, the Taiping rebellion and the Sino-Japanese War ( Maning 1910: 849 ) . The sequence of convulsions brought approximately much emphasis and humiliation towards the Chinese peasantry population as at the terminal of the twenty-four hours, the brunt of the load will be laid on the provincials in footings of the handiness of nutriment. The success or failure of a motion is non regarded as important within Chalmers ‘s model. Even though the imperial Chinese forces were defeated at the Siege of Legations, the motion still qualifies as a revolution ” . Violence was crystalline with the mass violent deaths of Christians and aliens wherever the Boxers went. Justice is believed to hold been delivered by fring the state of the immoralities that were working and mortifying Chinese society. Under Chalmer ‘s theory, the Boxer rebellion would so be considered a revolution ” .
Have the aims of the motion been met? Is this event considered a failed revolution? In order to reply this inquiry, we foremost have to understand the aims of the Boxer rebellion. Surprisingly, scholarship offers little understanding to the demands of the Boxers, other than the obvious xenophobia towards aliens and Christians, and the desire to throw out them from the state. In this respect, the rebellion has failed as the result was farther humiliation to China though the sign language of the Boxer Protocol on 7th September 1901 and increased foreign military presence on Chinese dirt ( Maning 1910: 860-861 ) . However, what success the motion achieved whether accidentally or deliberately are double. First, is to coerce foreign powers to believe twice before they dwell to further split up China amongst themselves, as it might bring on farther rebellions on their custodies if they continue to make so. Second, the failure ” of the Boxer rebellion would trip farther hatred towards the foreign powers generated from the shame of the Boxer Protocol, which would in bend give strength to the following rebellion.
So far, I have argued that the Boxer rebellion can be seen either as a revolution or non, depending on the pick of theory one adapts. This suggests that the labeling of a peculiar event to be known as a revolution or a rebellion does non swivel on the border of theories, but of something else. I believe political docket hold the key to the apprehension of sorting revolutions and rebellions. Stone highlights the construct of internal war ” to replace colonial wars, civil wars and societal revolutions, and defines it as any effort to change province policy, swayers, or establishments by the usage of force, in societies where violent competition is non the norm and where chiseled institutional forms exist ” ( 1966: 160 ) . If we adopt a dichotomic attack to Stone ‘s definition together with Clausewitz ‘s most celebrated pronouncement which states that war is but a continuance of political relations by other agencies ” , we see that revolution ” or internal war ” as a word by itself has its concealed intensions within political relations. Wordss like rebellion ” and revolution ” conveying about their ain instances of political luggage whenever they are thrown. For illustration, the use of rebellion ” would suggest resistance to the authorities, while on the other manus, revolution ” inspires hope and emancipation from subjugation ( Harrell and Perry 1982: 296 ; Bauman 1994: 15-17 ) . It is viewed through this lens, that there is a possibility that the Qing authorities labeled the peasantry motion to be a rebellion ” so as to pacify the foreign powers into believing that the Qing authorities was so on their side. This was strictly a political manoeuvre done so in order to have less hash reparations when covering with the Boxer Protocol ” .
In decision, this paper has shown how one is able to flexibly utilize certain radical attacks to label an event to be radical or non. I am non proposing we adopt a light-minded attitude towards the manner we view radical theories, but promote the impression of sing assorted revolutions against different theories as the battalion of attacks will surely edify us in a assortment of ways. The Boxer rebellion does so hold radical features harmonizing to certain theoreticians. However, due to political involvements, the Boxer revolution ” is everlastingly known as the Boxer rebellion ” . As the popular expression goes, one adult male ‘s Rebel is another adult male ‘s revolutionary ” .
Name: Gawain Chew Zi Neng,
Admin No: U4781377
Word count: 1403
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1994. A Revolution in the Theory of Revolutions? ” International Political Science Review 15 ( 1 ) : 15-24.
Davies, James C. 1962. Toward a Theory of Revolution ” American Sociological Review 27 ( 1 ) : 5-19.
Dunn, John. 1989. Modern revolutions: an debut to the analysis of a political phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairbank, J. K. 1949. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in China ” Pacific Affairs 22 ( 3 ) : 278-282.
Freeman, Michael. 1972. Theories of Revolution ” British Journal of Political Science 2 ( 3 ) : 339-359.
Harrell, Stevan and Perry, Elizabeth J. 1982. Syncretic Sects in Chinese Society: An debut ” Modern China 8 ( 3 ) : 283-303.
Kenji, Shimada. 1990. Pioneer of the Chinese Revolution: Zhang Binglin and Confucianism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
KrejA?i , Jaroslav. 1994. Great Revolutions Compared: the lineation of a theory. Great Britain: T.J Press.
Manning, William R. 1910. China and the Powers Since the Boxer Movement ” The American Journal of International Law 4 ( 4 ) : 848-902.
Pantsov, Alexander. 2000. The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution 1919-1927. Great Britain: Curzon Press.
Rock, Lawrence. 1966. Theories of Revolution ” World Politics 18 ( 2 ) : 159-176.
Tanter, Raymond and Midlarsky, Manus. 1967. A Theory of Revolution ” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 11 ( 3 ) : 264-280.
Wakeman, Frederick Jr. 1977. Rebellion and Revolution: The Study of Popular Movements in Chinese History ” The Journal of Asian Studies 36 ( 2 ) : 201-237.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read