Christainity in China,from Ming to Qing
Western missionaries paid visits to China started as early as 16 century.During Ming Dynasty , scholars such as Matteo Ricci, [1]Johann Adam Schall von Bell [2] and Ferdinand Verbiest， plus many others not as well known missionaries.Beside bringing christianity into China,they were bringing western knowledge as well,such as mathematic,geography, astronomy, metallurgy, and modern weapons making. All the prominent missionaries were given high positions in the Ming royal court, and were highly respected by Ming emperors and the bureaucrat, especially Matteo Ricci [3], who was being granted a burial place in the Royal Capital by the Ming Emperor[4] himself. Scientific books[5] brought into China by the missionaries were being translated into Chinese language. Vice versa, many books on Confucius teaching were being translated and introduced into the West.
However, when the Manchu conquerers took over the Forbidden City, they not only suspended all the cultural exchanges between East and west, they went much further by shutting down all the sea ports, burning every seagoing ships, and turning the whole coastal line into no man's zone. When Manchu was turning back the clock, England and Europe were going through Industrial Revolution and renaissance. In early 1700s, Great Britain[6] became a world power, an empire on which the sun never set.
When European powers were acquiring enormous riches through trading(including slaves trading)and conquests of various small countries, Manchu rulers had shut its door on the West for the next 200 plus years.
In 1743,British Commodore George Anson [7] was contemptuous of China's military power,and wrote: "in artifice, falsehood and an attachment to all kinds of lucre, many of the Chinese are difficult to be paralleled by any other people." which pretty much help shaped England's understanding of 16 century China.
In 1793,Lord Macartney,[8]had made another observation on the weaknesses and the falling apart of the Manchu Dynasty:"tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than 300 million of Chinese".
- After Napoleon was defeated,European powers then began the assault on Manchu Dynasty,whose military machine[9] was still consisted of bow and arrow,knife and spear,when Europeans were already using machine guns and high explosive shells on battle fields. On 1840-1843,with the first Opium War , Manchu suffered one of the most humiliating defeat in the hands of the Western powers; and it was the beginning of many more defeats to come.
By the middle to late 1800's, the "foreign devil" opponents were quite different. The English and French regulars and marines were much better discplined than the Russian cossacks of the 1600's. Muskets and Rifles of much higher rate of fire also were available. More importantly, the initial combat were done along the coast. The 74-gun third-rate line-of-battle ships like HMS Wellesley [10] (built in India) simply laid waste to Chinese coastal guns and troops near the shore. The return fire from Chinese coastal artilleries did not have the muzzle velocity to penetrate the couple feet of oak that made up the sides of the British/Indian ships. During the 1st Opium War, British troops did not venture much beyond the protection of their naval guns; the naval guns probably claimed the bulk of Chinese combat casulties. By the time of the 2nd Opium War, rifles with percussion cap cartriges became available, with even higher firing rate than flint-locks. So the Manchu/Mongol bannermen really did not have much of a chance even in-land. The Qing cavalry simply got shot to pieces before their crossbows were even in range.
By the time of the Boxer Rebellion, when the Qing troops fought both the rebels and the foreigners from time to time, the Allied army had gattling guns in addition to repeating rifles (like Winchester)[11] and artillery that fired shells (not just cannon balls). The fighting became even more lopsided. -
* Some eastern scholar suggest Opium[12] played a major part in the down fall af Manchu Dynasty. Ellen N. La Motte wrote:Opium was now contraband, but the fact had no effect on the quantity introduced into the country, which rose to 5,000 chests in 1820; 16,000 chests in 1830; 20,000 chests in 1838, and 70,000 chests in 1858." Such a large quantity of importation of opium would have require equally large amount of silver ingots in exchange.
Nearly 100% of the opium came from British East India Company in India,and the profit from the opium trade end up in the Bank of England.
10 Wednesday 09
[edit] References
1. ^ "Matteo Ricci""catholic encyclopedia on Matteo Ricci's life"
2. ^ "Johann Adam Schall von Bell""Another great missionary that went to china to spread the words of gosbel"
3. ^ "Chinese version of the first six books of Euclid's Elements""From about 1600 until the suppression in 1773, Jesuits were practically the sole source of Chinese knowledge about Western astronomy, geometry and trigonometry"
4. ^ "Geoff Wade""Southeast Asia in the Ming Shi-lu, Geoff Wade's translation of & commentary on texts from the Veritable Records of the history of Ming Dynasty"
5. ^ "Euclid's Elements""Euclid's Elements have been studied for centuries - in fact until the 20 th century it was the most common reprinted book after the Bible."
6. ^ "Great Britain"
7. ^ "Harry G. Gelber""a Professor of History and Political Science and Visiting Research Fellow, Asian Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Economy."
8. ^ [ http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1792macartney.html "Modern History Sourcebook"]"Lord Macartney told the Chinese legate that he would not perform the kowtow unless a high officer of state would kowtow before a picture of the King of England."
9. ^ [aer2.sbc.edu.hk/~wcc/China/DECLINE_1.DOC "Sweet Briar college history document"] "DECLINE OF THE QING DYNASTY,INFERIOR WEAPONS"
10. ^ "WOODEN WALLS""When she returned from this service, some 27 cannon balls were found embedded in her sides"
11. ^ "Winchester Repeating Rifle"
12. ^ "ELLEN N. LA MOTTE" "HISTORY OF THE OPIUM TRADE IN CHINA"
2008年9月9日 星期二
2008年9月7日 星期日
Wiki boxer rebellion long term short term cause.
*Western missionaries paid visits to China started as early as 16 century.During [[Ming Dynasty]] 明朝 ,great [[scholars]] such as [[Matteo Ricci]], (1552 – 1610) 利瑪竇,[[Johann Adam Schall von Bell]] (1591年－1666年）， 湯若望 ,and [[Ferdinand Verbiest]]，(1623－1688) 南懷仁 ,plus many others not as well known missionaries.Beside spreading the words of [[Christ]],they were spreading western knowledge as well,such as mathematic,geography,astronomy,metallurgy,and modern weapons making.All the prominent missionaries were given extreme high positions in the [[Ming]] royal court,and were highly respected by Ming emperors and the bureaucrat,especially Matteo [[Ricci]],who was being granted a burial place in the Royal Capital by none other than the [[Ming Emperor]] himself.
-
In less then 250 years,the high social status enjoyed by the western missionaries had turned from heaven to hell.The [[Manchu]] rulers,unlike the [[Ming]] emperors who were the true followers of [[Confucius]] Teaching,had stopped the interaction and exchange between two great cultures,that of the East and the West.
-
The Manchu rulers,whose ancestors were primitive tribal nomads and pastoral farmers and slaves chieftains,decided to permanently shutting the door on western culture and religion,by systematically killing foreign missionaries and their native converts,burn down the churches and Bibles,in the end causing the downfall and collapse of their own empire,which lasted only 260 years.
-
-
==Short Term Causes==
-
*'''Harry G. Gelber''' ,is the author[http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/China/gelber.html Harry G. Gelberis] "a Professor of History and Political Science and Visiting Research Fellow, Asian Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Economy."
-
of The Dragon and the Foreign Devils: China and the World, 1100 B.C. to the Present
-
-
In 1743,[[British]] Commodore George Anson was contemptuous of China's military power,and wrote: "in artifice, falsehood and an attachment to all kinds of lucre, many of the Chinese are difficult to be paralleled by any other people." which pretty much help shaped England's understanding of 16 century China,when [[Britain]] was on its way to becoming the [[Empire]] that the Sun never set.
-
In 1793,Lord Macartney,had made another observation on the weaknesses and the falling apart of the primitive Manchu Dynasty:"tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than 300 million of Chinese (read Han)".
-
After Napoleon was defeated,European powers then began the assault on this old and tired Manchu Dynasty,whose military machine was still consisted of bow and arrow,knife and spear,when Europeans were already using machine guns and high power cannons on battle fields.On 1840-1843,with the first Opium War , Manchu suffered one of the most humiliating defeat in the hands of the Western powers; and it was the beginning of many more defeats to come.
-
-
In less then 250 years,the high social status enjoyed by the western missionaries had turned from heaven to hell.The [[Manchu]] rulers,unlike the [[Ming]] emperors who were the true followers of [[Confucius]] Teaching,had stopped the interaction and exchange between two great cultures,that of the East and the West.
-
The Manchu rulers,whose ancestors were primitive tribal nomads and pastoral farmers and slaves chieftains,decided to permanently shutting the door on western culture and religion,by systematically killing foreign missionaries and their native converts,burn down the churches and Bibles,in the end causing the downfall and collapse of their own empire,which lasted only 260 years.
-
-
==Short Term Causes==
-
*'''Harry G. Gelber''' ,is the author[http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/China/gelber.html Harry G. Gelberis] "a Professor of History and Political Science and Visiting Research Fellow, Asian Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Economy."
-
of The Dragon and the Foreign Devils: China and the World, 1100 B.C. to the Present
-
-
In 1743,[[British]] Commodore George Anson was contemptuous of China's military power,and wrote: "in artifice, falsehood and an attachment to all kinds of lucre, many of the Chinese are difficult to be paralleled by any other people." which pretty much help shaped England's understanding of 16 century China,when [[Britain]] was on its way to becoming the [[Empire]] that the Sun never set.
-
In 1793,Lord Macartney,had made another observation on the weaknesses and the falling apart of the primitive Manchu Dynasty:"tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than 300 million of Chinese (read Han)".
-
After Napoleon was defeated,European powers then began the assault on this old and tired Manchu Dynasty,whose military machine was still consisted of bow and arrow,knife and spear,when Europeans were already using machine guns and high power cannons on battle fields.On 1840-1843,with the first Opium War , Manchu suffered one of the most humiliating defeat in the hands of the Western powers; and it was the beginning of many more defeats to come.
-
袁偉時教授文章英文版
Modernization and History Textbooks. By Yuan Weishi (Zhongshan University professor)
[in translation; see Chinese original]
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 Opium 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.
[in translation; see Chinese original]
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 Opium 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.
2008年9月6日 星期六
Wiki boxer rebellion
Empress Dowager most remembered sayings
* (1)天下,乃我爱新覺羅之天下
Translation: 爱新覺羅 Aisin Gioro, was the clan name of the Manchu emperors of the Qing dynasty . The word aisin means gold in the Manchu language, and "gioro" means clan in the Manchu language.
天下,Literary it means everything under the heaven.Used in this context,it means CHINA as a nation.Empress Dowager was saying CHINA ,is the property of the Aisin Gioro clan.It is our family's private property,and has got nothing to do with anyone else.
* (2)量中华之物力，结与国之欢心
After the Manchu Dynasty's humiliating defeat by the Eight Nations Alliance,the western powers demanded huge compensations.To this,Empress replied:量中华之物力, 中华,the original,and the oldest name of CHINA.The whole phrase translate:We have to put together,and offer whatever CHINA can manage to supply.结与国之欢心 translate:Have to try to satisfy foreign nation's desires,and make them happy. Put the two phrase together,we can then work out,that Empress Dowager always put the interests of Aisin Gioro clan at first priority,anything else is secondly.
* (3)宁与友邦，不与家奴 ,was a statement made by Empress Dowager during the siege of Peking by the Eight Nation Alliance. 家奴,private slaves,because Manchu's ancestors was a nomadic tribe 女真 nuchen,or jurchen,there was only two social classes:master,slave.You are either master,or slave.So Manchu rulers called their subjects "slaves" 奴,奴才,which in itself is a Manchu word.In making this statement,Dowager was saying she would give away anythings the foreign nations demanded,and will not give it to her own slaves(her countryman)
[edit] Failure of the Hundred Days' Reform
The Hundred Day's Reform ( 戊戌變法); 11 June 1898 - 21 September 1898) was started. The leaders of the reform were Guangxu Emperor, Kang Youwei ( 康有為) and Liang Qichao ( 梁啟超). Eventually, it ended in a coup d'état led by Empress Dowager Cixi.
Even though Emperor Guangxu was a physically and mentally weak person,he still hoped that the Hundred Days' Reform will turn China into a strong and modern nation.However,with the conservative Empress flexing her powerful political muscle behind,the reform failed in about 100 days.
The Dragon Empress Dowager ,then staged a coup d'etat by putting then young Emperor Guangxu under house arrest in the middle of a lake,and had trusted eunuchs to keep watch,even though the Emperor was her own nephew.However,the western powers preferred Emperor Guangxu to stay at the throne,and kept on pressuring Dowager to cease control of the Emperor.
Dowager refused,and started plotting with some officials to punish the foreign powers by recruiting the Boxer to kill foreign missionaries and Chinese converts,end up causing Peking,an ancient imperial capital,to be sacked and looted by an international army.
[edit] Righteous Harmony Society 義和團
* At the beginning of the 20th century,China,for the past 260 plus years,had been under the rule of a barbaric tribe,Manchu,which had a population of fewer then 500 thousands at the beginning.The conquering of China(the majority of the population was Han 漢族) was through brute force and massacres,resulting in the annihilation of tens of millions of people.
* The barbaric law "To keep your hair,you lose your head" 留髮不留頭,which killed millions of Han,was designed to cow Han people into submission,as Manchu chieftains forced Han male to shave off the hair on their forehead,and grow a pigtail at the back. When Dr.Sun Yat Sen called for a revolution to overthrow the inhuman and primitive Manchu tribal chieftains,he started with cutting off his own pigtail,as a signal of the beginning of the revolution.
* Manchu Emperors,even though they had copied Ming Dynasty's Imperial system to govern the country,in essence they still treated all their subjects as slaves,and Master own everything,including the life of the slaves.When western diplomats came to Manchu palace to see the emperors,all diplomats had to kneel in front of the emperors too,same like the rest of the emperor's subjects.Moreover,Manchu emperors treated all foreigners "Barbarians",even though they themselves were not far from it.
* When hungry peasants from famine area started to form groups with name "Righteous Harmony Society",their initial objectives were to fight the Manchu chieftains.One of the original slogans was "反清復明" "To end the Manchu's rule,To bring back Ming Dynasty"(Which was also the slogan of the present day Chinese underground Triad)
* However,Empress Dowager saw the value in them.She sent her officials to turn this "Righteous Harmony Society" into a mod that began killing foreign missionaries and native christians.She wanted to punish those western powers who supported emperor Guangxu's Hundred Days' Reform.She could not use the Imperial army,she had to find an alternative.Hence the beginning of the Boxer rebellion,with a new agenda,and slogan "扶清滅洋".Literally,it means "To support Qing's rule,To exterminate all the things foreign"
* During the siege of the Peking legation which went on for two months,Empress Dowager did not step in to offer protection for foreign diplomats and their families.And the provision of protection to foreign diplomats is a universal law being adopted by human civilization for thousands of years.In the years of 1900,Manchu tribal chieftains chose to remain ignorant and barbaric by murdering foreign diplomats and missionaries,then they should not be surprised to see foreign soldiers marching into their palace.
[edit] BMS Missionaries Beheaded
By 1900 Baptist Missionary Society, along with many other missioanry organisations, had sent hundreds of missionaries to China's Shanxi province, including Taiyuan, the main city.In August 1900, an article in the mission's magazine Missionary Herald published a letter from Shanxi hinting that there was "[a] terrible cloud that hangs fierce and ominous over China". The news gradually emerged that there had been a massacre at Taiyuan.
Missionary Herald, through letters and telegrams, were able to tell readers and relatives in Britain,what did their loved ones went through during 1900.The suffering and humiliation,and death,endured by the missionaries and their families,was considered "the darkest and most tragic episodes of BMS world mission's history.
One of the telegram on 10/1900 Missionary Herald :"Mission houses in Taiyuan burned…. Missionaries fled there… promised safety, immediately massacred, altogether thirty-three Protestants. "
12/1900 Missionary Herald:"tells of their discovery in a cave, where for five days they had been without food, and how, after promise of escort to the coast, they were cast into prison and afterwards murdered inside the city gate… the entire mission staff in the Province of Shanxi has perished. "
Missionary Herald reported again:The Shanxi governor Yuxian,with the full support of the Empress Dowager, ordered:"Foreign religions are reckless and oppressive, disrespectful to the gods and oppressive to the people. The righteous people(read Boxer) will burn and kill. "
It was very clear that Empress Dowager,the Manchu Dynasty supreme ruler,was giving the orders to both its governor Yuxian,and the Boxer,"it is OK to kill foreign missionaries and christian converts,the Imperial Court will back you up"
Missionary Herald further reported that at Taiyuan,the then governor sent in soldiers to round up missionaries,stripped them to the waist,and beheaded them in front of the governor's residence.It was the same at Xinzhou,another city,where 8 missionaries were put into a dungeon for two weeks before they were beheaded at the gate of the city.
[edit] Orthodox Missionaries burnt to death
Russian orthodox church,had set up mission in China at the end of the seventeenth century.A former Buddhist temple near Beijing was converted into a church dedicated to Saint Nicholas, and church vestments and holy objects were sent from the Imperial Court in Russia.
When Manchu Emperor Kangxi had discovered that local Roman Catholic missionaries followed orders from the Pope,Emperor Kangxi and his successors began persecutions against Christians.Because of persecution,the then Russian Emperor Peter The Great asked the orthodox church to stay low key,not to upset the Ch'ing dynasty or other missionary.
The orthodox church's record has shown:Quote:By June 1900, placards calling for the death of foreigners and Christians covered the walls around Beijing. Armed bands combed the streets of the city, setting fire to homes and "with imperial blessing" killing Chinese Christians and foreigners.Unquoted.
On 10/6/1900,about 70 followers of Saint Mitrophan,and his 8 years old son,were all stabbed and burnt to death.
[edit] Jesuit priests beheaded.
The Jesuit priests,Father Isore and Father Andlauer,were both killed at a chapel,quote:Then they beheaded them and displayed the heads of the Jesuits on the village gates as a brutal warning of what awaited Christians who did not return to their ancestral religion. Unquoted.
[edit] English Professor Henry Hart
Prpfessor's great-grandfather was a larger then life figure.Among many things,he was
(1) a spy and advisor for Chiang Kai-shek,the leader of China's Kuomintang,
(2) advisor on Mongolian affairs for the Chinese president and self-declared emperor Yuan Shikai,
(3) sold 23,000 horses for the Chinese army.
Professor Henry Hart's grandmother,enchanted him with tales about how her father had saved her and numerous missionary families during China's Boxer Rebellion.
During those times,Boxers blamed “foreign devils” like his great-grandparents for causing northern China's drought and famine, exacerbating economic hardships by building railroads and telegraph lines (because such modern conveniences eliminated jobs), undermining the native textile industry with European imports, infecting and killing Chinese children with Christian prayers and for various other real and imagined infamies.
The great-grandfather had left him a journal,into it he wrote a first-person's account,on how, he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks,without firing a single shot from his old Winchester rifle.
Later on he led a group of fleeing missionaries for two months through the Gobi Desert and the rest of Mongolia to Siberia.
The valuable information kept in the journal included the fact that the Boxer uprising ultimately claimed the lives of more than 32,000 Chinese Christians and several hundred foreign missionaries (historian Nat Brandt called it “the greatest single tragedy in the history of Christian evangelicalism”).
[edit] 30,000 Chinese Roman Catholics martyred
Reports on Oversea Missionary Fellowship on Chinese Martyrs
Manchu Dynasty signing of the 1860 Peking Convention,enabled the Roman Catholic Church to build schools,colleges and hospitals,resulting in large number of catholic missionaries to work in China.
The following list complied by the Oversea Missionary Fellowship says it all:
Catholic Chinese Martyrs
30,000 Chinese Martyrs Roman Catholics
2000 Chinese Martyrs Protestants
35 Protestant Martyrs missionaries, 53 children
47 Roman Catholic priests & nuns
CIM losses - 58 missionaries, 21 children
First-hand eye-witness's account.
(1) William S Fleming, an Australian, had become the first CIM martyr. Fleming died trying to protect his friend and assistant Pan Shoushan, a Black Miao convert. Pan Shoushan was also martyred.
(2) At the end of 1899, a missionary from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was murdered.
(3) On 24 June 1900, Empress Dowager issued a decree ordering the destruction of all ‘foreign devils’. The hated barbarians were to be driven out of China.Westerners and Chinese Christians were hunted down, and houses, schools and churches burnt to the ground.
(4) Chang Yuwen, a 17-year-old Chinese Christian, was cut into pieces and his body nailed to a wall in Tangshan, Hebei Province. Others were shot, stabbed, stoned, run over by carts or strangled.
(5)Chen Xikong, another Christian in Hebei Province, had his heart cut out and placed on a stone. Some missionaries died, still kneeling in prayer.
(6)CIM worker Gilbert Ritchie wrote, ‘Alas, only a very few of my beloved fellow missionaries in the province of Shanxi escaped the blood-stained hands of the Boxers.’ One of those martyred was Ritchie’s Chinese helper, a converted Buddhist priest.
(7) The Boxers entered Tianjin waving the heads of murdered missionaries, and were joined by imperial troops.
(8)One missionary, dying on the way to Hanzhou, whispered to her husband, ‘I wish I could have lived, I wish I could have gone back there to tell the people more about Jesus.’
(9)Those who escaped death, but had lost everything else, had only one thought - to return to their beloved Chinese as soon as possible.
(10)The Empress Dowager returned, and died in 1908, having given instructions for Emperor Guangxu to be poisoned. She outlived him by one day, not realising that the Manchu dynasty itself had only three years to live.
* Diana Prestonand "The Boxer Rebellion"
On the Federation of American Scientist web site, Voice of America's reporter Stephanie Mann,had an in depth interview with Diana Preston,a British journalist and writer,who had just published her new book "The Boxer Rebellion"
Diana Preston,through her book,provides a detail examination of a mini war that was fought 100 years ago,and she tries to give it a new perspective.In her own word:"this was the first example of international policing and was the precursor to what has become a common activity of NATO and the United Nations.
Even though 100 years had passed,majority of Chinese still considered it a national shame for China,because an international army had marched into Peking and looted the Royal Palace,burnt the Royal Garden,and then demand huge amount of "war compensation",just because they were the victors.
* Pope Canonizes 120 Killed in China and One American
New York Times's Alessandra Stanley reported on 2/10/2000.Stanley said:"China had no saints before today. By canonizing as martyrs 87 Chinese believers and 33 European missionaries killed between 1648 and 1930, John Paul sought to send a strong signal to China's beleaguered underground Catholics, who are loyal to the pope."
Stanley also said:"Most of the 120 martyrs died in the anti-Western, anti-Christian Boxer Rebellion in the 19th century, which China still reveres as an heroic resistance to imperialists."
Below is the list of the list of martyres canonized by the Vatican on 1/10/2000.
(a)Martyrs of Shanxi, killed on 9 July 1900, who were Franciscan Friars Minor:
Blessed Gregory Grassi, Bishop,
Blessed Francis Fogolla, Bishop,
Blessed Elias Facchini, Priest,
Blessed Theodoric Balat, Priest,
Blessed Andrew Bauer, Religious Brother;
(b) Martyrs of Southern Hunan, who were also Franciscan Friars Minor:
Blessed Anthony Fantosati, Bishop (martyred on 7 July 1900),
Blessed Joseph Mary Gambaro, Priest (martyred on 7 July 1900),
Blessed Cesidio Giacomantonio, Priest (martyred on 4 July 1900).
Of the martyrs belonging to the Franciscan family, there were also eleven Secular Franciscans, all Chinese:
Blessed John Zhang Huan, seminarian,
Blessed Patrick Dong Bodi, seminarian,
Blessed John Wang Rui, seminarian,
Blessed Philip Zhang Zhihe, seminarian,
Blessed John Zhang Jingguang, seminarian,
Blessed Thomas Shen Jihe, layman and a manservant,
Blessed Simon Qin Cunfu, lay catechist,
Blessed Peter Wu Anbang, layman,
Blessed Francis Zhang Rong, layman and a farmer,
Blessed Matthew Feng De, layman and neophyte,
Blessed Peter Zhang Banniu, layman and labourer.
To these are joined a number of Chinese lay faithful:
Blessed James Yan Guodong, farmer,
Blessed James Zhao Quanxin, manservant,
Blessed Peter Wang Erman, cook.
Among these were four French Jesuit missionaries and at least 52 Chinese lay Christians: men, women and children – the oldest of them being 79 years old, while the youngest were aged only nine years.
All suffered martyrdom in the month of July 1900. Many of them were killed in the church in the village of Tchou-Kia-ho, in which they were taking refuge and where they were in prayer together with the first two of the missionaries listed below:
Blessed Leo Mangin, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Paul Denn, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Rémy Isoré, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Modeste Andlauer, S.J., Priest.
Blessed Mary Zhu born Wu, aged about 50 years,
Blessed Peter Zhu Rixin, aged 19,
Blessed John Baptist Zhu Wurui, aged 17,
Blessed Mary Fu Guilin, aged 37,
Blessed Barbara Cui born Lian, aged 51,
Blessed Joseph Ma Taishun, aged 60,
Blessed Lucy Wang Cheng, aged 18,
Blessed Mary Fan Kun, aged 16,
Blessed Mary Chi Yu, aged 15,
Blessed Mary Zheng Xu, aged 11 years,
Blessed Mary Du born Zhao, aged 51,
Blessed Magdalene Du Fengju, aged 19,
Blessed Mary du born Tian, aged 42,
Blessed Paul Wu Anjyu, aged 62,
Blessed John Baptist Wu Mantang, aged 17,
Blessed Paul Wu Wanshu, aged 16,
Blessed Raymond Li Quanzhen, aged 59,
Blessed Peter Li Quanhui, aged 63,
Blessed Peter Zhao Mingzhen, aged 61,
Blessed John Baptist Zhao Mingxi, aged 56,
Blessed Teresa Chen Tinjieh, aged 25,
Blessed Rose Chen Aijieh, aged 22,
Blessed Peter Wang Zuolung, aged 58,
Blessed Mary Guo born Li, aged 65,
Blessed Joan Wu Wenyin, aged 50,
Blessed Zhang Huailu, aged 57,
Blessed Mark Ki-T'ien-Siang, aged 66,
Blessed Ann An born Xin, aged 72,
Blessed Mary An born Guo, aged 64,
Blessed Ann An born Jiao, aged 26,
Blessed Mary An Linghua, aged 29,
Blessed Paul Liu Jinde, aged 79,
Blessed Joseph Wang Kuiju, aged 37,
Blessed John Wang Kuixin, aged 25,
Blessed Teresa Zhang born He, aged 36,
Blessed Lang born Yang, aged 29,
Blessed Paul Lang Fu, aged 9,
Blessed Elizabeth Qin born Bian, aged 54,
Blessed Simon Qin Cunfu, aged 14,
Blessed Peter Liu Zeyu, aged 57,
Blessed Ann Wang, aged 14,
Blessed Joseph Wang Yumei, aged 68,
Blessed Lucy Wang born Wang, aged 31,
Blessed Andrew Wang Tianqing, aged 9,
Blessed Mary Wang born Li, aged 49,
Blessed Chi Zhuze, aged 18,
Blessed Mary Zhao born Guo, aged 60,
Blessed Rose Zhao, aged 22,
Blessed Mary Zhao, aged 17,
Blessed Joseph Yuan Gengyin, aged 47,
Blessed Paul Ge Tingzhu, aged 61,
* (1)天下,乃我爱新覺羅之天下
Translation: 爱新覺羅 Aisin Gioro, was the clan name of the Manchu emperors of the Qing dynasty . The word aisin means gold in the Manchu language, and "gioro" means clan in the Manchu language.
天下,Literary it means everything under the heaven.Used in this context,it means CHINA as a nation.Empress Dowager was saying CHINA ,is the property of the Aisin Gioro clan.It is our family's private property,and has got nothing to do with anyone else.
* (2)量中华之物力，结与国之欢心
After the Manchu Dynasty's humiliating defeat by the Eight Nations Alliance,the western powers demanded huge compensations.To this,Empress replied:量中华之物力, 中华,the original,and the oldest name of CHINA.The whole phrase translate:We have to put together,and offer whatever CHINA can manage to supply.结与国之欢心 translate:Have to try to satisfy foreign nation's desires,and make them happy. Put the two phrase together,we can then work out,that Empress Dowager always put the interests of Aisin Gioro clan at first priority,anything else is secondly.
* (3)宁与友邦，不与家奴 ,was a statement made by Empress Dowager during the siege of Peking by the Eight Nation Alliance. 家奴,private slaves,because Manchu's ancestors was a nomadic tribe 女真 nuchen,or jurchen,there was only two social classes:master,slave.You are either master,or slave.So Manchu rulers called their subjects "slaves" 奴,奴才,which in itself is a Manchu word.In making this statement,Dowager was saying she would give away anythings the foreign nations demanded,and will not give it to her own slaves(her countryman)
[edit] Failure of the Hundred Days' Reform
The Hundred Day's Reform ( 戊戌變法); 11 June 1898 - 21 September 1898) was started. The leaders of the reform were Guangxu Emperor, Kang Youwei ( 康有為) and Liang Qichao ( 梁啟超). Eventually, it ended in a coup d'état led by Empress Dowager Cixi.
Even though Emperor Guangxu was a physically and mentally weak person,he still hoped that the Hundred Days' Reform will turn China into a strong and modern nation.However,with the conservative Empress flexing her powerful political muscle behind,the reform failed in about 100 days.
The Dragon Empress Dowager ,then staged a coup d'etat by putting then young Emperor Guangxu under house arrest in the middle of a lake,and had trusted eunuchs to keep watch,even though the Emperor was her own nephew.However,the western powers preferred Emperor Guangxu to stay at the throne,and kept on pressuring Dowager to cease control of the Emperor.
Dowager refused,and started plotting with some officials to punish the foreign powers by recruiting the Boxer to kill foreign missionaries and Chinese converts,end up causing Peking,an ancient imperial capital,to be sacked and looted by an international army.
[edit] Righteous Harmony Society 義和團
* At the beginning of the 20th century,China,for the past 260 plus years,had been under the rule of a barbaric tribe,Manchu,which had a population of fewer then 500 thousands at the beginning.The conquering of China(the majority of the population was Han 漢族) was through brute force and massacres,resulting in the annihilation of tens of millions of people.
* The barbaric law "To keep your hair,you lose your head" 留髮不留頭,which killed millions of Han,was designed to cow Han people into submission,as Manchu chieftains forced Han male to shave off the hair on their forehead,and grow a pigtail at the back. When Dr.Sun Yat Sen called for a revolution to overthrow the inhuman and primitive Manchu tribal chieftains,he started with cutting off his own pigtail,as a signal of the beginning of the revolution.
* Manchu Emperors,even though they had copied Ming Dynasty's Imperial system to govern the country,in essence they still treated all their subjects as slaves,and Master own everything,including the life of the slaves.When western diplomats came to Manchu palace to see the emperors,all diplomats had to kneel in front of the emperors too,same like the rest of the emperor's subjects.Moreover,Manchu emperors treated all foreigners "Barbarians",even though they themselves were not far from it.
* When hungry peasants from famine area started to form groups with name "Righteous Harmony Society",their initial objectives were to fight the Manchu chieftains.One of the original slogans was "反清復明" "To end the Manchu's rule,To bring back Ming Dynasty"(Which was also the slogan of the present day Chinese underground Triad)
* However,Empress Dowager saw the value in them.She sent her officials to turn this "Righteous Harmony Society" into a mod that began killing foreign missionaries and native christians.She wanted to punish those western powers who supported emperor Guangxu's Hundred Days' Reform.She could not use the Imperial army,she had to find an alternative.Hence the beginning of the Boxer rebellion,with a new agenda,and slogan "扶清滅洋".Literally,it means "To support Qing's rule,To exterminate all the things foreign"
* During the siege of the Peking legation which went on for two months,Empress Dowager did not step in to offer protection for foreign diplomats and their families.And the provision of protection to foreign diplomats is a universal law being adopted by human civilization for thousands of years.In the years of 1900,Manchu tribal chieftains chose to remain ignorant and barbaric by murdering foreign diplomats and missionaries,then they should not be surprised to see foreign soldiers marching into their palace.
[edit] BMS Missionaries Beheaded
By 1900 Baptist Missionary Society, along with many other missioanry organisations, had sent hundreds of missionaries to China's Shanxi province, including Taiyuan, the main city.In August 1900, an article in the mission's magazine Missionary Herald published a letter from Shanxi hinting that there was "[a] terrible cloud that hangs fierce and ominous over China". The news gradually emerged that there had been a massacre at Taiyuan.
Missionary Herald, through letters and telegrams, were able to tell readers and relatives in Britain,what did their loved ones went through during 1900.The suffering and humiliation,and death,endured by the missionaries and their families,was considered "the darkest and most tragic episodes of BMS world mission's history.
One of the telegram on 10/1900 Missionary Herald :"Mission houses in Taiyuan burned…. Missionaries fled there… promised safety, immediately massacred, altogether thirty-three Protestants. "
12/1900 Missionary Herald:"tells of their discovery in a cave, where for five days they had been without food, and how, after promise of escort to the coast, they were cast into prison and afterwards murdered inside the city gate… the entire mission staff in the Province of Shanxi has perished. "
Missionary Herald reported again:The Shanxi governor Yuxian,with the full support of the Empress Dowager, ordered:"Foreign religions are reckless and oppressive, disrespectful to the gods and oppressive to the people. The righteous people(read Boxer) will burn and kill. "
It was very clear that Empress Dowager,the Manchu Dynasty supreme ruler,was giving the orders to both its governor Yuxian,and the Boxer,"it is OK to kill foreign missionaries and christian converts,the Imperial Court will back you up"
Missionary Herald further reported that at Taiyuan,the then governor sent in soldiers to round up missionaries,stripped them to the waist,and beheaded them in front of the governor's residence.It was the same at Xinzhou,another city,where 8 missionaries were put into a dungeon for two weeks before they were beheaded at the gate of the city.
[edit] Orthodox Missionaries burnt to death
Russian orthodox church,had set up mission in China at the end of the seventeenth century.A former Buddhist temple near Beijing was converted into a church dedicated to Saint Nicholas, and church vestments and holy objects were sent from the Imperial Court in Russia.
When Manchu Emperor Kangxi had discovered that local Roman Catholic missionaries followed orders from the Pope,Emperor Kangxi and his successors began persecutions against Christians.Because of persecution,the then Russian Emperor Peter The Great asked the orthodox church to stay low key,not to upset the Ch'ing dynasty or other missionary.
The orthodox church's record has shown:Quote:By June 1900, placards calling for the death of foreigners and Christians covered the walls around Beijing. Armed bands combed the streets of the city, setting fire to homes and "with imperial blessing" killing Chinese Christians and foreigners.Unquoted.
On 10/6/1900,about 70 followers of Saint Mitrophan,and his 8 years old son,were all stabbed and burnt to death.
[edit] Jesuit priests beheaded.
The Jesuit priests,Father Isore and Father Andlauer,were both killed at a chapel,quote:Then they beheaded them and displayed the heads of the Jesuits on the village gates as a brutal warning of what awaited Christians who did not return to their ancestral religion. Unquoted.
[edit] English Professor Henry Hart
Prpfessor's great-grandfather was a larger then life figure.Among many things,he was
(1) a spy and advisor for Chiang Kai-shek,the leader of China's Kuomintang,
(2) advisor on Mongolian affairs for the Chinese president and self-declared emperor Yuan Shikai,
(3) sold 23,000 horses for the Chinese army.
Professor Henry Hart's grandmother,enchanted him with tales about how her father had saved her and numerous missionary families during China's Boxer Rebellion.
During those times,Boxers blamed “foreign devils” like his great-grandparents for causing northern China's drought and famine, exacerbating economic hardships by building railroads and telegraph lines (because such modern conveniences eliminated jobs), undermining the native textile industry with European imports, infecting and killing Chinese children with Christian prayers and for various other real and imagined infamies.
The great-grandfather had left him a journal,into it he wrote a first-person's account,on how, he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks,without firing a single shot from his old Winchester rifle.
Later on he led a group of fleeing missionaries for two months through the Gobi Desert and the rest of Mongolia to Siberia.
The valuable information kept in the journal included the fact that the Boxer uprising ultimately claimed the lives of more than 32,000 Chinese Christians and several hundred foreign missionaries (historian Nat Brandt called it “the greatest single tragedy in the history of Christian evangelicalism”).
[edit] 30,000 Chinese Roman Catholics martyred
Reports on Oversea Missionary Fellowship on Chinese Martyrs
Manchu Dynasty signing of the 1860 Peking Convention,enabled the Roman Catholic Church to build schools,colleges and hospitals,resulting in large number of catholic missionaries to work in China.
The following list complied by the Oversea Missionary Fellowship says it all:
Catholic Chinese Martyrs
30,000 Chinese Martyrs Roman Catholics
2000 Chinese Martyrs Protestants
35 Protestant Martyrs missionaries, 53 children
47 Roman Catholic priests & nuns
CIM losses - 58 missionaries, 21 children
First-hand eye-witness's account.
(1) William S Fleming, an Australian, had become the first CIM martyr. Fleming died trying to protect his friend and assistant Pan Shoushan, a Black Miao convert. Pan Shoushan was also martyred.
(2) At the end of 1899, a missionary from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was murdered.
(3) On 24 June 1900, Empress Dowager issued a decree ordering the destruction of all ‘foreign devils’. The hated barbarians were to be driven out of China.Westerners and Chinese Christians were hunted down, and houses, schools and churches burnt to the ground.
(4) Chang Yuwen, a 17-year-old Chinese Christian, was cut into pieces and his body nailed to a wall in Tangshan, Hebei Province. Others were shot, stabbed, stoned, run over by carts or strangled.
(5)Chen Xikong, another Christian in Hebei Province, had his heart cut out and placed on a stone. Some missionaries died, still kneeling in prayer.
(6)CIM worker Gilbert Ritchie wrote, ‘Alas, only a very few of my beloved fellow missionaries in the province of Shanxi escaped the blood-stained hands of the Boxers.’ One of those martyred was Ritchie’s Chinese helper, a converted Buddhist priest.
(7) The Boxers entered Tianjin waving the heads of murdered missionaries, and were joined by imperial troops.
(8)One missionary, dying on the way to Hanzhou, whispered to her husband, ‘I wish I could have lived, I wish I could have gone back there to tell the people more about Jesus.’
(9)Those who escaped death, but had lost everything else, had only one thought - to return to their beloved Chinese as soon as possible.
(10)The Empress Dowager returned, and died in 1908, having given instructions for Emperor Guangxu to be poisoned. She outlived him by one day, not realising that the Manchu dynasty itself had only three years to live.
* Diana Prestonand "The Boxer Rebellion"
On the Federation of American Scientist web site, Voice of America's reporter Stephanie Mann,had an in depth interview with Diana Preston,a British journalist and writer,who had just published her new book "The Boxer Rebellion"
Diana Preston,through her book,provides a detail examination of a mini war that was fought 100 years ago,and she tries to give it a new perspective.In her own word:"this was the first example of international policing and was the precursor to what has become a common activity of NATO and the United Nations.
Even though 100 years had passed,majority of Chinese still considered it a national shame for China,because an international army had marched into Peking and looted the Royal Palace,burnt the Royal Garden,and then demand huge amount of "war compensation",just because they were the victors.
* Pope Canonizes 120 Killed in China and One American
New York Times's Alessandra Stanley reported on 2/10/2000.Stanley said:"China had no saints before today. By canonizing as martyrs 87 Chinese believers and 33 European missionaries killed between 1648 and 1930, John Paul sought to send a strong signal to China's beleaguered underground Catholics, who are loyal to the pope."
Stanley also said:"Most of the 120 martyrs died in the anti-Western, anti-Christian Boxer Rebellion in the 19th century, which China still reveres as an heroic resistance to imperialists."
Below is the list of the list of martyres canonized by the Vatican on 1/10/2000.
(a)Martyrs of Shanxi, killed on 9 July 1900, who were Franciscan Friars Minor:
Blessed Gregory Grassi, Bishop,
Blessed Francis Fogolla, Bishop,
Blessed Elias Facchini, Priest,
Blessed Theodoric Balat, Priest,
Blessed Andrew Bauer, Religious Brother;
(b) Martyrs of Southern Hunan, who were also Franciscan Friars Minor:
Blessed Anthony Fantosati, Bishop (martyred on 7 July 1900),
Blessed Joseph Mary Gambaro, Priest (martyred on 7 July 1900),
Blessed Cesidio Giacomantonio, Priest (martyred on 4 July 1900).
Of the martyrs belonging to the Franciscan family, there were also eleven Secular Franciscans, all Chinese:
Blessed John Zhang Huan, seminarian,
Blessed Patrick Dong Bodi, seminarian,
Blessed John Wang Rui, seminarian,
Blessed Philip Zhang Zhihe, seminarian,
Blessed John Zhang Jingguang, seminarian,
Blessed Thomas Shen Jihe, layman and a manservant,
Blessed Simon Qin Cunfu, lay catechist,
Blessed Peter Wu Anbang, layman,
Blessed Francis Zhang Rong, layman and a farmer,
Blessed Matthew Feng De, layman and neophyte,
Blessed Peter Zhang Banniu, layman and labourer.
To these are joined a number of Chinese lay faithful:
Blessed James Yan Guodong, farmer,
Blessed James Zhao Quanxin, manservant,
Blessed Peter Wang Erman, cook.
Among these were four French Jesuit missionaries and at least 52 Chinese lay Christians: men, women and children – the oldest of them being 79 years old, while the youngest were aged only nine years.
All suffered martyrdom in the month of July 1900. Many of them were killed in the church in the village of Tchou-Kia-ho, in which they were taking refuge and where they were in prayer together with the first two of the missionaries listed below:
Blessed Leo Mangin, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Paul Denn, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Rémy Isoré, S.J., Priest,
Blessed Modeste Andlauer, S.J., Priest.
Blessed Mary Zhu born Wu, aged about 50 years,
Blessed Peter Zhu Rixin, aged 19,
Blessed John Baptist Zhu Wurui, aged 17,
Blessed Mary Fu Guilin, aged 37,
Blessed Barbara Cui born Lian, aged 51,
Blessed Joseph Ma Taishun, aged 60,
Blessed Lucy Wang Cheng, aged 18,
Blessed Mary Fan Kun, aged 16,
Blessed Mary Chi Yu, aged 15,
Blessed Mary Zheng Xu, aged 11 years,
Blessed Mary Du born Zhao, aged 51,
Blessed Magdalene Du Fengju, aged 19,
Blessed Mary du born Tian, aged 42,
Blessed Paul Wu Anjyu, aged 62,
Blessed John Baptist Wu Mantang, aged 17,
Blessed Paul Wu Wanshu, aged 16,
Blessed Raymond Li Quanzhen, aged 59,
Blessed Peter Li Quanhui, aged 63,
Blessed Peter Zhao Mingzhen, aged 61,
Blessed John Baptist Zhao Mingxi, aged 56,
Blessed Teresa Chen Tinjieh, aged 25,
Blessed Rose Chen Aijieh, aged 22,
Blessed Peter Wang Zuolung, aged 58,
Blessed Mary Guo born Li, aged 65,
Blessed Joan Wu Wenyin, aged 50,
Blessed Zhang Huailu, aged 57,
Blessed Mark Ki-T'ien-Siang, aged 66,
Blessed Ann An born Xin, aged 72,
Blessed Mary An born Guo, aged 64,
Blessed Ann An born Jiao, aged 26,
Blessed Mary An Linghua, aged 29,
Blessed Paul Liu Jinde, aged 79,
Blessed Joseph Wang Kuiju, aged 37,
Blessed John Wang Kuixin, aged 25,
Blessed Teresa Zhang born He, aged 36,
Blessed Lang born Yang, aged 29,
Blessed Paul Lang Fu, aged 9,
Blessed Elizabeth Qin born Bian, aged 54,
Blessed Simon Qin Cunfu, aged 14,
Blessed Peter Liu Zeyu, aged 57,
Blessed Ann Wang, aged 14,
Blessed Joseph Wang Yumei, aged 68,
Blessed Lucy Wang born Wang, aged 31,
Blessed Andrew Wang Tianqing, aged 9,
Blessed Mary Wang born Li, aged 49,
Blessed Chi Zhuze, aged 18,
Blessed Mary Zhao born Guo, aged 60,
Blessed Rose Zhao, aged 22,
Blessed Mary Zhao, aged 17,
Blessed Joseph Yuan Gengyin, aged 47,
Blessed Paul Ge Tingzhu, aged 61,
2008年9月2日 星期二
现代化与历史教科书 2006年01月11日 中山大学教授 袁伟时
冰点特稿第574期
现代化与历史教科书
2006年01月11日
中山大学教授 袁伟时 http://zqb.cyol.com/gb/zqb/2006-01/11/content_118530.htm
21世纪的中国人，面对的是顺之者昌、逆之者困的全球化趋势。与此同时，中国的现代化事业进入了关键时刻。在这个年代，决定公民和国家发展成败的最重要条件是制度环境，但公民的心智状态对自己乃至国家和社会发展的影响也十分巨大。
20世纪70年代末，在经历了反右派、大跃进和文化大革命三大灾难后，人们沉痛地发觉，这些灾难的根源之一是：“我们是吃狼奶长大的。”20多年过去了，偶然翻阅一下我们的中学历史教科书，令我大吃一惊的是：我们的青少年还在继续吃狼奶！
“以史为鉴”、“前事不忘，后事之师”，这是中国人耳熟能详的名言。屈辱、挫折、兵连祸结、前仆后继，一部中国近代史蕴藏着多少血泪和经验教训！我们有责任将历史真实告诉我们的青少年，让他们永志不忘。这是帮助他们成为现代公民的必由之路。如果天真纯洁的孩子吞食的竟是变味乃至有意无意假造的丸丹，只能让偏见伴随终生，甚至因而误入歧途。
现在是正视我们自己的历史教科书问题的时候了。现从几个具体的历史事件谈起。
火烧圆明园是不是无法避免的？
火烧圆明园是英法侵略军犯下的不可饶恕的罪行。事情为什么会弄到如此地步？140多年过去了，我们理应冷静地考察双方的应对得失，吸取教训，让各国人民更好地共处。这一事件是“第二次鸦片战争”的恶果之一。人民教育出版社历史室编著的《中国历史》第三册，是被普遍采用的九年义务教育三年制初级中学教科书。它是这样评述这次战争的：
一、关于战争起因。
这部教科书写道：“1856年3月，法国天主教神甫马赖，潜入广西西林地区胡作非为，被当地官吏处死。这就是所谓的‘马神甫事件’。后来，法国以此为借口，伙同英国发动侵略战争。同年10月，广州水师在中国商船‘亚罗号’上，缉捕了海盗和水手。英国领事无端干涉，硬说‘亚罗号’是英国船要求中国方面释放被捕的人，并向英方赔礼道歉。两广总督叶名琛怕事态扩大，释放了被捕的水手，但拒绝道歉。这就是所谓的‘亚罗号事件’。1856年10月，英国首先挑起战争，炮轰广州，第二次鸦片战争开始。”
这里说的亚罗号事件大体符合历史事实。至于杀法国天主教神甫马赖（Auguste Chapdelaine），至今仍是一笔糊涂账。马氏是1856年2月29日被广西西林代理知县张鸣凤所杀的。直至法国公使查问，张鸣凤仍然矢口否认，说根本没有这回事。致使广西按察使和两广总督到了1858年初还信以为真，据此回答法国公使和上奏朝廷。
1844年10月订立的中法《黄埔条约》规定，法国人只准在五口通商的双方“议定界址内”活动，“法兰西无论何人，如有犯此例禁，或越界，或远入内地，听凭中国官查拿，但应解送近口法兰西领事官收管；中国官民均不得殴打、伤害、虐待所获法兰西人，以伤两国和好。”
马氏1842年起，便到西林传教，《黄埔条约》订立后仍不离开，这是违反条约的错误行为。但把他处死，显然是西林地方官员的行为，违反了应把拘捕的法国人解送领事的条约义务。直至现在人们仍无法确定马氏确有该处死刑的哪些罪。按照程序正义优先的法学观点，中方无疑理亏。教科书对此事的评述是不准确的。
还要指出，教科书只字不提引发这次战争的两条根本原因：一是英国政府要求清政府忠实履行《江宁条约》的规定，其中重要一点是让英国官员和商人可以自由进入广州城。让洋人进城，现在看来，完全是不值一提的小事，当时在五口通商的其他四口尽管也有过大小不一的纠纷，但都一一化解，没有酿成巨祸。惟独在广州，却惊动朝野上下，闹得天翻地覆，开各地反入城斗争的先河，历时十多年无法解决，直至兵戎相见。
二是《望厦条约》规定：“所有贸易及海关各款恐不无稍有变通之处，应俟十二年后，两国派员公平酌办。”《黄埔条约》亦规定：“若有应行更易章程条款之处……核计满十二年之数，方可与中国再行筹议。”修改有关的通商条款，本属平常外交事务，清政府也一再拖延，加深了双方的矛盾。
关于挑起这次战争的原因，当时的有识之士就有所反思。深悉内情的薛福成沉痛地说：“英人初志在得入城见大吏，借以通隔阂、驭商民，乃粤民一激再激，叶相（叶名琛）复一误再误，使拱手而有粤城……益知中国易与，遂纠法、俄、美三国兵船北上，驶入大沽，阻我海运，立约而还……粤民激于前此大府议和之愤，万众一辞，牢不可破，必阻其入城一事以为快，屡请屡拒，纷纭者二十年，而大沽之失，天津之约，皆成于此，由今观之，甚无谓也。”晚清曾国藩、李鸿章、冯桂芬、郭嵩焘等人屡以“勿以小嫌酿大衅”相告诫，其中就包含了以广州反入城斗争为开端的惨痛教训。
同属中华人民共和国，香港的中学历史教科书就比大陆编得高明。它把这次战争的起因归结为四点：1．外人入城问题。2．续修条约问题。3．阿罗号船事件。 4．马赖神父事件。这样说符合历史实际，无损中国国家利益，有利于年轻一代学会冷静地分析历史问题，显示出编者是合格的历史学家。令人不解的是：为什么不向这些本国的同行学习呢？
二、关于战争过程。
1858年，大沽被占，英法侵略者兵临天津城下，英法俄美等国先后迫使清政府签订了《天津条约》。虽然丧失了不少权利，问题总算有个着落，双方还议定翌年在北京互换批准书，彻底完成法定程序。如果照双方的协议办理，导致火烧圆明园的英法联军再一次入侵是有可能避免。
可是，谁也没有料到纯属程序性的最后一步还会节外生枝，招来更大灾祸！教科书是这样写的：“1859年，英国公使和法国公使各率一支舰队北上大沽口，准备进京换约。清政府指定换约代表由北塘登陆，经天津至北京，并要求各兵船武装人员不得登岸。英法公使却仗恃武力，坚持要从大沽口溯白河进京。他们蛮横地率舰队闯入大沽口。防守大沽炮台的士兵开炮打击入侵者。炮弹准确地落在侵略军的军舰上，打沉了四艘，打坏了六艘，其余三艘挂起白旗逃跑了。在炮战的同时，侵略军900人企图登陆，也被打退。侵略军死伤几百人。大沽一带人民冒着枪林弹雨，给战士送饼送面，表现了高度的爱国热情。”在编者笔下，这是一曲爱国英雄进行曲，主角是士兵和普通百姓。可是，稍加推敲，便有很多疑问。
从后果看，这一仗显然打错了。翌年，英法联军再次入侵，招致北京被占，圆明园被烧。续订《北京条约》，不但规定原订的《天津条约》继续有效，还招来其他新损失：对英法的赔款分别由四百万两和二百万两一律增至各八百万两；割让九龙司；允许法籍传教士在中国自由传教，“并任法国传教士在各省租买田地，建造自便 ”，为日后连绵不断的教案种下祸根。如果不打，不是对中国更有利吗？
人们理所当然应该追问：公使走哪条路进京，真有那么重要，乃至不惜一战？双方意见分歧有没有认真交涉？真的是士兵自行开炮还是奉命行事？如果是前者，这是触犯军纪造成严重后果的大错，能算是爱国英雄的义举吗？如属后者，是奉了什么样的命令？
复查史实，这根本不是什么爱国英雄的壮举，而是愚昧的咸丰皇帝和僧格林沁亲王犯下的大罪。而且分歧不是教科书说的走哪条路进京，而是要英法使者绕个大弯进天津。当时在僧王幕下的郭嵩焘在日记中留下这样的记录：1859年4月10日“怡亲王至营……言奉旨密商一语：如夷人入口不依规矩，可悄悄击之，只说是乡勇，不是官兵。予曰：凡事须是名正言顺，须缓缓商之。怡邸愦愦可笑。僧邸商酌再三，欲令其由北塘入口，绕道至天津……辩论再三始定局，附片奏明。”
《北京条约》订立后，他更具体叙述了当时的情况：“夷祸成于僧邸之诱击。去岁之役，先后奉诏旨十余，饬令迎出拦江沙外晓谕。洎夷船入内河九日，僧邸不一遣使往谕。去衣冠自称乡勇，薄而击之。仆陈谏再四，又虑语言不能通晓，两上书力争。”曾国藩对他的幕僚说过：“咸丰九年，洋人来换和约，僧忠亲王诱而击沉其船，天下称快。十年，夷人复至……京师不守，几丧天下。某谓僧邸此败，义当杀身以谢天下矣。”他们说的情况，同当时在现场的英国公使卜鲁斯的报告如出一辙。英法军舰6月16日已经到达，直到25日早晨才接到直隶总督恒福的照会，而当时军事行动已经开始。这些史料可以归纳为这么几点：
1．咸丰皇帝决定在一定条件下，可以让官兵假扮乡勇，“悄悄”袭击洋鬼子。同时，他又十余次下令，要先“晓谕”洋人，先礼后兵。
2．僧格林沁忠实执行了“悄悄击之”的旨意，但没有事先晓谕；也坚决拒绝手下大臣的劝阻；并且是要洋人从北塘登陆，绕道至天津的设计者。
3．对这一丧权辱国的横祸，以曾国藩、郭嵩焘、吴汝纶等为代表（还包括李鸿章、冯桂芬等人）的比较清醒的官僚和士绅，已经有过严厉的批评和讽喻。
令人震惊的是：时至20世纪90年代，我们的教科书，仍然按咸丰皇帝和僧格林沁的调子唱歌，不同之处仅在把“乡勇”换成“士兵”！
说到这里，我们可以回答火烧圆明园是不是可以避免的问题了。面对咄咄逼人的强敌，作为弱势的大清帝国一方，明智的选择是严格执行现有条约，避免与之正面冲突，争取时间，改革和发展自己。而当时的政府和士绅，完全被极端的情绪支配，在小事上制造违约的蠢行，结果酿成大祸。如果清政府决策层和有关的地方督抚不是那么愚昧，这场灾祸是有可能避免的。可是，朝野上下的认识水平和专制的决策程序，是历史的积淀，不是朝夕所能改变；侵略的本性又决定了他们不可能成为文明之师；于是，这场灾祸又是难以避免的。
是爱国壮举还是有悖文明行为
再来看看教科书的作者对义和团事件的评述吧。
教科书正确揭露了“八国联军侵占北京以后，烧杀抢掠，无恶不作”；“在八国联军进攻天津的时候……（俄国）制造了骇人听闻的海兰泡大屠杀惨案。俄国军队还强占了中国江东六十四屯，残酷屠杀当地居民。”此外的论述只能说是错误连篇。
一、教科书没有只字提及义和团敌视现代文明和盲目排斥外国人以及外来文化的极端愚昧的行为。
义和团毁电线、毁学校、拆铁路、烧洋货、杀洋人和与外国人及外国文化有点关系的中国人……凡沾点洋气的物和人，必彻底消灭而后快。即使义和团真的立下了“ 扶清灭洋”的伟大功勋，也不能回避它的这些反文明、反人类的错误，何况正是这些罪恶行径给国家和人民带来莫大的灾难！这些都是众所周知的史实，也是中国人不能忘记的国耻，而我们的少年儿童必读的教科书却偏偏闭口不谈。
教科书也谈到拆毁铁路。它是怎么说的呢？“1900年6月……八国侵略军2000多人，由英国海军司令西摩尔率领，从大沽经天津向北京进犯。义和团拆毁从天津到北京的铁道，奋起狙击侵略军。侵略军在廊坊一带被义和团包围，死伤多人，狼狈逃回天津。”如此说来，拆毁铁路不过是抵抗侵略者迫不得已的措施。实际情况怎样？
1900年5月28日（阴历五月初一），直隶总督裕禄致电总理各国事务衙门：“二十九夜（5月27日）先闻涿州至琉璃河一带猝被拳匪将铁路焚毁，讵今早由琉璃河至长辛店一百余里沿途铁道车站桥梁并局所洋房，均有拳匪蜂起焚烧”。与此同时，各地纷纷告急：“刻下电线又阻……至长辛店线阻，由琉璃河至涿州线，被匪徒砍断，所有电均被阻滞。”他们破坏这些设施完全出于对外来事物的敌视，而不是为了抵抗侵略者不得不采取的应急行动。同时，这类行动波及各地，不是局部性的偶发现象。也就是说，这是蓄意破坏财产的罪行，而不是某些史家说的抵抗侵略者的功勋。从时间看，西摩尔军从出发到被迫撤回天津是6月10日至26日之间的事，而在此之前拆毁铁路、电线，焚烧车站、抢掠财产的急报，已纷至沓来。义和团烧杀抢掠、敌视和肆意摧毁现代文明在前，八国联军进军在后，这个次序是历史事实，无法也不应修改。
二、教科书也没有谴责清政府高级官员及义和团乱杀无辜，烧杀抢掠的野蛮、残忍的罪行。
最有代表性的是山西巡抚毓贤的作为。六月初一（6月27日），他将太原洋人办的医院烧掉，同时“将省中洋人，诱令迁居一处。当于教堂内搜出妇女二百一十一口，年老者数人，而五六岁十余岁至二三十岁者居多……于六月十三日，不动声色，带领兵勇，前赴洋人聚居之处，亲自兜拿。该洋人等尤敢拼力抗拒，奴才麾令勇敢数人，冒死突进，将洋人大小男女四十四口，及同恶相济的教民十七名，一齐擒获，立即绑赴市曹，同时正法”；“寿阳县秦锡圭拏获滋事之洋人七名口，押解前来，一并将其立正典刑。是晚北门教堂亦为拳民焚烧，省城洋人教堂已无遗迹”。当时的报刊还报道：“寓晋西人，得京师乱耗。群求毓贤保护。不料竟诱聚而歼之，且手刃数人焉。”
毓贤的行为不是孤立的。所有不思进取的顽固分子，都是传统文化中最落后、野蛮的成分的继承者，这类顽固官僚趁机为非作歹的事例不胜枚举。例如，辅国公载澜是奉旨会同载勋、刚毅“统率”京津义和团的宗室，其残暴就不让毓贤：“京师乱起，载澜从拳匪入人家，大索，得毡布及他物，皆以教民论，扑杀之，虽宗室大臣不免”。
再看看义和团的所作所为吧。前人早已指出，不能把所有参加义和团的民众都视为匪徒，他们不少是盲从的愚民，但混迹其间的确实不少是土匪和流氓。总计在义和团事件中，全国各地1900年6月24日～7月24日期间，被杀外国人231名，其中儿童53名。他们大都死于义和团之手。至于中国的教徒（教民）和所谓 “二毛子”被杀的，更是没有算清的糊涂账，其中绝大部分是被义和团杀死的，官兵也杀了一些。仅山西一省，就有中国天主教徒5700余人被杀。奉天（辽宁）全省“教民人命千余”。“而直隶（河北）全省杀人焚屋之案，几于无县无之。其杀人多者，一县竟至一二千名口”。甚至浙江亦“抢劫、焚毁教民家室至一千余家之众”。
“受害最烈”的北京，当时有关人士留下不少实录：1900年6月18日“城中日焚劫，火光连日夜……夙所不快者，即指为教民，全家皆尽，死者十数万人。其杀人则刀矛并下，肌体分裂，婴儿生未匝月者，亦杀之残酷无复人理”。“法国天主堂在西安门内西什库，刚相（刚毅）尝督兵攻之，亦不能破，拳实不敢前，哗噪而已。拳匪既不得志，无以塞后意，乃噪而出永定门。乡民适趋市集，七十余人悉絷以来；伪饰优伶冠服儿童戏物，指为白莲教；下刑部一夕，未讯供，骈斩西市。有妇人宁家，亦陷其中，杂诛之，儿犹在抱也……毓鼎上疏力争之，谓：‘谋乱当有据，羸翁弱妇，非谋乱之人；优装玩具，非谋乱之物……’疏入，狱已具”。
6月16日，“是日九点中，团匪烧大栅栏德记药房，延烧粮食店、灯市街、观音寺、珠宝市……共计店铺四千余家，火至天明未息。匪禁水会救火”。这个京师最繁华的地区于是毁于一旦。总的说来，“京师盛时，居人殆四百万。自拳匪暴军之乱，劫盗乘之，卤掠一空，无得免者。坊市萧条，狐狸昼出，向之摩肩击毂者，如行墟墓间矣。”这是所谓义和团“革命”的后果之一。
开头，民众与传教士和教民的矛盾令人同情；可是，他们后来的作为远远超过与外来宗教矛盾的界线。事件过后直至民国初年，朝野各界将这个组织定性为拳匪是有足够根据的。
三、令人无法理解的是它对慈禧的专制淫威惹来滔天大祸竟只字不提！
义和团兴起之初，袁世凯就上奏“其用以惑人者，谓能避枪炮。然迭与乡团、教民、兵役格斗，一遇枪炮，辄伤毙多人，瓦解鼠窜……其藉以动人者，谓图灭洋教。然上年春夏间，在曹州、济宁各属，掠教民一千一百余家，并掠及平民二百余家。秋冬间在东阳、济南各属，掠教民六百余家，亦掠及平民百余家。内多掳架勒赎之案，直与盗匪无异。故教民既被其殃，而平民亦多受其害。”而且有些地位比袁世凯更高的大臣（如北洋大臣、直隶总督裕禄等等）也提出了类似的意见。慈禧充耳不闻，比较清醒的众多大臣只好保持缄默，品质不良之辈则乘风转舵，谄上邀宠（如裕禄）。
一个在六年前连一个“敢于犯上”的“蕞尔小国”———日本都无法招架的弱国，居然要同时向包括日本在内的11国宣战！《国际法》传入中国60年后，竟要派兵围攻驻华使馆！
为了决定和战大计，从1900年6月16日开始，慈禧一连四天召集王公大臣六部九卿开御前会议。在会上吏部侍郎许景澄、兵部尚书徐用仪、户部尚书立山、内阁学士联元等人先后提出不能听信邪术、不可围攻使馆、不能主动对外宣战。总理各国事务衙门大臣袁昶和许景澄在两人联名的奏折中写道：“伏以春秋之义，两国搆兵，不戮行人，泰西公法，尤以公使为国之重臣，蔑视其公使，即蔑视其国。兹若任令该匪攻毁使馆，尽杀使臣，各国引为大耻，联合一气，致死报复……以一国而敌各国，臣愚以谓不独胜负攸关，实存亡攸关也。”慈禧不但不接纳这些浅显的常识，而且大发专制淫威，把他们的脑袋砍掉！
同时，包括毓贤杀洋人在内的罪行，大都发生在6月21日下诏与各国宣战、6月24日命各省督抚杀洋人以后。首犯是慈禧，毓贤、载漪等人不过是凶狠的执行者。
四、教科书对一些史料的运用也很不严肃。
“义和团，起山东，不到三月遍地红。孩童个个拿起刀，保国逞英雄。”教科书以突出位置刊载了这一歌谣，说是“义和团歌谣”。可是，笔者孤陋寡闻，读过的现存义和团传单、揭帖等书面材料中找不到可以作为根据的史料。而后来调查的所谓口头传说，往往是后人加工乃至创造的，根本不足为凭。
教科书又说：“北京东单西裱胡同有座于谦庙。为了学习于谦的爱国精神，1900年4月，义和团进城后，把神坛设在这里。”一切学术观点都应拒绝牵强附会，要经得起反驳。载漪、载澜等祸国殃民的满清权贵家里都设有义和团神坛，这又是向他们学习什么？
在我国，除了上述人民教育出版社出版的教科书外，还有一套可供选用的沿海地区教材。号称沿海版，有的地方史实错误更严重，是非观念更加糊涂。
例如，对义和团事件的论述，它增加了这么两句话：“6月中旬以后，义和团群众开始围攻侵略者据点西什库教堂和外国使馆区。清政府却暗中派人给被围困的侵略者送去粮食、蔬菜、酒、水果等，表示慰问。”每句话都错得一塌糊涂！
首先要问：西什库教堂是“侵略者据点”吗？在义和团事件前，这不过是普通的法国天主教堂，没有材料足以证明它是“侵略者据点”。义和团期间，从1900年 6月13日起几天内就将北京大部分教堂和洋楼烧毁，连带烧掉数千家民居和商店，劫余的西什库教堂和东交民巷使馆区聚集了大批逃生的外国人和中国教民。这个教堂的逃生者，在清政府不能维持正常社会秩序的情况下，固守反抗屠杀，于理于法都无可指责。说这个教堂是“侵略者据点”，完全是信口开河。
其次，围攻东交民巷是奉慈禧的旨意，主力是董福祥的甘军和荣禄的武卫中军，是他们犯下的罪行，义和团则是助纣为虐。含糊其词，仿佛此举是义和团自发的爱国义举，不但歪曲了历史真相，也掩盖了清政府践踏国际法的罪行。再次，对西什库教堂和使馆区的进攻，充分体现了专制统治者极端愚昧无知和残暴；时至20世纪 90年代仍然正面予以肯定，这是对国际法的无知，已经沦为对国耻的颂扬，也忘记了“反对封建专制”的责任！
再看第二句。清政府确实曾派人给被围困的外国使馆送过生活日用品，这是奉旨公开进行的，说是“暗中”于史无据。当时，清政府内部比较清醒的大臣一再上奏，要求按照国际惯例保护外国外交人员和外国人；东南各省的督抚甚至公开声明不再承认6月21日宣战后的“伪诏”。迫于这些压力，加上她色厉内荏，要预留“转圜”余地，不得不作出这样的姿态。不管是真是假，这是清政府内部理性尚未完全泯灭的表现。把它与义和团的行动对举而意含贬损，显然是很不恰当的。
对义和团事件和八国联军评述比较全面的同样是香港的教科书。它既谴责义和团“大肆排外，杀教士、教民，连藏洋书、戴眼镜的人都不放过，且到处破坏，烧教堂、拆电线、毁铁路。”“日本使馆书记杉山彬、德国公使克林德先后被杀”；也指出“当时联军纪律极坏，任意焚掠屠杀，其中以俄、德两国军队及英国的印度兵最为残暴。”细致分析了义和团产生的背景：1．民族情绪。2．民生困苦。3．列强侵略。4．教案频生。还全面论述了辛丑条约的内容及它对当时和日后中国的深远影响。任何不抱偏见的人都会承认，这部教科书说的是真实的历史。
如何面对被侮辱和被损害的状况
出现这些现象与中国长期处于被侮辱和被损害的境遇息息相关。面对如是现实，可以有不同的心态。
西方的入侵彻底改变了中国历史的行程。伴之而生的是天朝大国的表象破裂，大量民众在生死线上挣扎。人们顺理成章把这种状况归罪于“洋鬼子”；也谴责统治者腐朽、愚昧、软弱。一个辩论不休难于取得共识的问题是：内因还是外因是导致这个状况的主要根源？
其实，完全可以从另外一个角度提出问题：这个状况迟迟不能改变的原因何在？如果有人说这是因为帝国主义者太凶狠了，这等于什么都没有说。经过长期、复杂、反复的博弈过程，在国际关系中可以逐步建立比较合乎多数人和多数国家长远利益的“正义”秩序。当这个状况尚未出现以前，不会有救世主从天而降，慷慨代你维护国家利益。问题只能归结为面对这样的现实，如何才能走出困境？
海内外的经验证明：后发展国家和地区（殖民地、半殖民地）改变不发达状况，改变被动局面的惟一道路，是向西方列强学习，实现社会生活的全面现代化。成败的关键在国内的改革。这是一个社会运行机制的全面改造过程。对那些文化自成体系，而对外来文化深闭固拒的国家说来，这是十分艰难的过程。以中国来说，从鸦片战争算起至20世纪初实行新政，仅是辩论要不要改革就整整花掉60年！至于改革取向，包括是通过革命手段还是通过渐进的改革开辟前进道路，更是头绪繁复。不过，有一条是肯定无疑的：必须千方百计争取一个和平的国际环境，为国内的改革和建设赢得充分的时间。如果此说大致不差，回头再看义和团，对内，它是与社会前进方向背道而驰的反动事件。对外，乱杀洋人不但是反人道、反文明的罪行，也是极端愚蠢危害中国自身利益的暴行。
有个流行多年为义和团事件辩护的论断：义和团避免了中国被瓜分。早在1989年已故历史学家李时岳先生已经详尽地驳斥了这一诡辩。不但4亿5千万两赔款（相当于当时将近6年的全国财政收入）像一支巨大的吸血管插进中国人的胸膛，而且给沙俄藉口，趁机制造了海兰泡和江东64屯惨案，7000多中国人被杀，江东领土全被吞没，大量俄军进占东北；华北地区在战争中死伤烧杀的损失难以数计。战后的瓜分阴谋更没有停止：英军进攻西藏，占领拉萨；德国派炮舰进入洞庭湖，并要求租借洞庭湖和鄱阳湖沿岸；英国则相应要求租借舟山群岛作为“补偿”！
有人喜欢援引八国联军统帅、德国人瓦德西的这么一段话：“无论欧美日本各国，皆无此脑力与兵力可以统治此天下生灵四分之一，故瓜分一事，实为下策。”证明义和团化解了瓜分图谋。李时岳先生说得好：“瓦德西个人的观感并不能代表德国的政策，德皇一直把瓜分作为对华政策的基点，上述要求‘租借’洞庭湖和鄱阳湖沿岸的行动就是证明。只是由于帝国主义之间的矛盾，瓜分才没有实行。”
把视野放得更宽一些，问题就更加清楚。前人早已指出：甲午战争、戊戌变法和义和团事件是一条割不断的历史链条。说得更准确一些是：甲午战争彻底暴露了大清帝国的腐朽，不少知识阶层从几十年迷梦中惊醒，反思自强运动不敢触及“自由不自由”这个根本问题的错误，形成了第一次群众性启蒙运动，改革也有新进展。是学习西方彻底改革，还是固守传统，不准变革，成了中国盛衰的关键，也是解读这段历史的基本线索。不幸，体现甲午战败后的变革进程进入高潮的戊戌变法以失败告终。戊戌政变标志着学西方、求变革的挫折和倒退；义和团事件不过是政变后固守传统反对变革的反动逆流的巅峰。换句话说，义和团事件对外使中国在被奴役的附属国的道路上继续沉沦，对内则举目皆是国破家亡的图景。
走出把革命粗鄙化的文化心态
2000～2001年之间，引起中国人关注的一个国际事件，是日本的教科书问题。一部右翼势力编纂的历史教科书掩盖历史真相，否认日本政府犯下的侵略罪行，激起包括中韩两国政府和人民在内的海内外朝野人士强烈抗议。这是伸张正义的斗争，而且这是20年间第四次了。1982、1986、1996年都曾出现新修教科书歪曲历史，一再在日本国内外激起公愤。这一日本思想文化领域的顽症，促使许多人形成一个极为深刻的印象：日本人缺乏忏悔意识。人们还进一步追问：为什么会出现这样死不认罪的现象？这是不是大和民族特有的缺陷？
看看上述中国的教科书问题，一个合理的推断是，我们的近代史观也有类似的问题。当然日本是侵略者，中国是被侵略者，这是截然不同的。可是，两者也有共同点：社会的主流文化都对自己的近代史缺乏深刻的反思。
从20世纪初开始，中国的有识之士一再提出要改造中国人的“国民性”。这些先驱用心良苦，但他们没有进一步追问：决定国民性的主要因素是什么？可以说，国民性是一国公民思维和行为方式的特点。任何民族都是从吃人生番演变过来的。作为一个群体，文明程度的高低和野蛮孑遗的大小，决定性的因素是受文化传统和制度制约的自我净化能力的强弱。
被侮辱被损害的屈辱，给中国人构筑了新的思想定势。这突出地表现在长期以来形成的一个似是而非的观念：因为“洋鬼子”是侵略者，中国人怎么做都是有理，都应歌颂。这是爱国主义的要求。
现在的历史教科书就是以此为指导思想的。热爱自己的祖国，理所当然。可是，如何爱国，却有两种不同的选择。一种是盲目煽动民族情绪；中国传统文化中“严华夷之辨”、“非我族类，其心必异”等观念已经深入骨髓。时至今日，余毒未清。新的版本是：中外矛盾，中国必对；反列强、反洋人就是爱国。在史料选择和运用中，不管是真是假，有利中国的就用。另一种选择是：以理性的态度分析一切；是其是，非其非，冷静、客观、全面地看待和处理一切涉外矛盾。
现代化的基本精神就是理性化。如果我们认同这个基本观点，就应该引导中国人往这条道上走，让理性、宽容内在化，成为中国人的国民性，以利各国人民和各种文化和谐共处。在全球化迅猛发展的时代，企业之间和国家之间的利益冲突不可能泯灭；理性地认识和化解矛盾对任何国家和企业都是最好的选择。如果一涉外就是“ 反帝”、“反霸”，非把事情弄砸不可。
例如，法是人类文明的结晶，社会运行的规则。国际条约是有法律效力的。人们可以指责这些规则和条约是列强主导下形成的，不利于弱国和贫苦民众。人们应该不断批判和揭露它的谬误，通过各种力量的博弈，形成新的规则，修订新的条约。可是，在没有修改以前，我们仍然不得不遵守它，否则就会造成不应有的混乱，归根到底不利于弱国和多数民众。
19、20世纪中国人干了不少“无法无天”的事，义和团事件是其中的典型。值得重视的是不但至今有人把野蛮的行为说成是“革命”，而且到了20世纪90年代，有人竟把主张遵守现行国际条约的观点视为应该严加批判的卖国投降观点！
说到底，这是把革命粗鄙化的流毒。
必须清醒地看到，在社会领域，只有引发制度变革的行动，才称得上真正的革命。太平天国和义和团都不符合这个要求。这样的歪曲实际是把革命粗鄙化，迟早总要付出代价。
不能轻视这些错误教育的后果。违反常识理性，以“革命”的名义故意歪曲历史真相，歌颂义和团的直接恶果在“文化大革命”中就暴露无遗。红卫兵火烧英国代办处，是义和团行动的翻版；“破四旧”和“反帝”、“反修”中体现的清除外来事物的疯狂，这些行动体现的内在理路，也与义和团的“灭洋”如出一辙。
上述教科书的编写所呈现的理路，也没有什么不同。它们的共同点是：1．现有的中华文化至高无上。2．外来文化的邪恶，侵蚀了现有文化的纯洁。3．应该或可以用政权或暴民专制的暴力去清除思想文化领域的邪恶。用这样的理路潜移默化我们的孩子，不管主观意图如何，都是不可宽宥的戕害。
为了培育理性的有法治观念的现代公民，以利于现代化事业，现在是纠正这些谬误的时候了。
现代化与历史教科书
2006年01月11日
中山大学教授 袁伟时 http://zqb.cyol.com/gb/zqb/2006-01/11/content_118530.htm
21世纪的中国人，面对的是顺之者昌、逆之者困的全球化趋势。与此同时，中国的现代化事业进入了关键时刻。在这个年代，决定公民和国家发展成败的最重要条件是制度环境，但公民的心智状态对自己乃至国家和社会发展的影响也十分巨大。
20世纪70年代末，在经历了反右派、大跃进和文化大革命三大灾难后，人们沉痛地发觉，这些灾难的根源之一是：“我们是吃狼奶长大的。”20多年过去了，偶然翻阅一下我们的中学历史教科书，令我大吃一惊的是：我们的青少年还在继续吃狼奶！
“以史为鉴”、“前事不忘，后事之师”，这是中国人耳熟能详的名言。屈辱、挫折、兵连祸结、前仆后继，一部中国近代史蕴藏着多少血泪和经验教训！我们有责任将历史真实告诉我们的青少年，让他们永志不忘。这是帮助他们成为现代公民的必由之路。如果天真纯洁的孩子吞食的竟是变味乃至有意无意假造的丸丹，只能让偏见伴随终生，甚至因而误入歧途。
现在是正视我们自己的历史教科书问题的时候了。现从几个具体的历史事件谈起。
火烧圆明园是不是无法避免的？
火烧圆明园是英法侵略军犯下的不可饶恕的罪行。事情为什么会弄到如此地步？140多年过去了，我们理应冷静地考察双方的应对得失，吸取教训，让各国人民更好地共处。这一事件是“第二次鸦片战争”的恶果之一。人民教育出版社历史室编著的《中国历史》第三册，是被普遍采用的九年义务教育三年制初级中学教科书。它是这样评述这次战争的：
一、关于战争起因。
这部教科书写道：“1856年3月，法国天主教神甫马赖，潜入广西西林地区胡作非为，被当地官吏处死。这就是所谓的‘马神甫事件’。后来，法国以此为借口，伙同英国发动侵略战争。同年10月，广州水师在中国商船‘亚罗号’上，缉捕了海盗和水手。英国领事无端干涉，硬说‘亚罗号’是英国船要求中国方面释放被捕的人，并向英方赔礼道歉。两广总督叶名琛怕事态扩大，释放了被捕的水手，但拒绝道歉。这就是所谓的‘亚罗号事件’。1856年10月，英国首先挑起战争，炮轰广州，第二次鸦片战争开始。”
这里说的亚罗号事件大体符合历史事实。至于杀法国天主教神甫马赖（Auguste Chapdelaine），至今仍是一笔糊涂账。马氏是1856年2月29日被广西西林代理知县张鸣凤所杀的。直至法国公使查问，张鸣凤仍然矢口否认，说根本没有这回事。致使广西按察使和两广总督到了1858年初还信以为真，据此回答法国公使和上奏朝廷。
1844年10月订立的中法《黄埔条约》规定，法国人只准在五口通商的双方“议定界址内”活动，“法兰西无论何人，如有犯此例禁，或越界，或远入内地，听凭中国官查拿，但应解送近口法兰西领事官收管；中国官民均不得殴打、伤害、虐待所获法兰西人，以伤两国和好。”
马氏1842年起，便到西林传教，《黄埔条约》订立后仍不离开，这是违反条约的错误行为。但把他处死，显然是西林地方官员的行为，违反了应把拘捕的法国人解送领事的条约义务。直至现在人们仍无法确定马氏确有该处死刑的哪些罪。按照程序正义优先的法学观点，中方无疑理亏。教科书对此事的评述是不准确的。
还要指出，教科书只字不提引发这次战争的两条根本原因：一是英国政府要求清政府忠实履行《江宁条约》的规定，其中重要一点是让英国官员和商人可以自由进入广州城。让洋人进城，现在看来，完全是不值一提的小事，当时在五口通商的其他四口尽管也有过大小不一的纠纷，但都一一化解，没有酿成巨祸。惟独在广州，却惊动朝野上下，闹得天翻地覆，开各地反入城斗争的先河，历时十多年无法解决，直至兵戎相见。
二是《望厦条约》规定：“所有贸易及海关各款恐不无稍有变通之处，应俟十二年后，两国派员公平酌办。”《黄埔条约》亦规定：“若有应行更易章程条款之处……核计满十二年之数，方可与中国再行筹议。”修改有关的通商条款，本属平常外交事务，清政府也一再拖延，加深了双方的矛盾。
关于挑起这次战争的原因，当时的有识之士就有所反思。深悉内情的薛福成沉痛地说：“英人初志在得入城见大吏，借以通隔阂、驭商民，乃粤民一激再激，叶相（叶名琛）复一误再误，使拱手而有粤城……益知中国易与，遂纠法、俄、美三国兵船北上，驶入大沽，阻我海运，立约而还……粤民激于前此大府议和之愤，万众一辞，牢不可破，必阻其入城一事以为快，屡请屡拒，纷纭者二十年，而大沽之失，天津之约，皆成于此，由今观之，甚无谓也。”晚清曾国藩、李鸿章、冯桂芬、郭嵩焘等人屡以“勿以小嫌酿大衅”相告诫，其中就包含了以广州反入城斗争为开端的惨痛教训。
同属中华人民共和国，香港的中学历史教科书就比大陆编得高明。它把这次战争的起因归结为四点：1．外人入城问题。2．续修条约问题。3．阿罗号船事件。 4．马赖神父事件。这样说符合历史实际，无损中国国家利益，有利于年轻一代学会冷静地分析历史问题，显示出编者是合格的历史学家。令人不解的是：为什么不向这些本国的同行学习呢？
二、关于战争过程。
1858年，大沽被占，英法侵略者兵临天津城下，英法俄美等国先后迫使清政府签订了《天津条约》。虽然丧失了不少权利，问题总算有个着落，双方还议定翌年在北京互换批准书，彻底完成法定程序。如果照双方的协议办理，导致火烧圆明园的英法联军再一次入侵是有可能避免。
可是，谁也没有料到纯属程序性的最后一步还会节外生枝，招来更大灾祸！教科书是这样写的：“1859年，英国公使和法国公使各率一支舰队北上大沽口，准备进京换约。清政府指定换约代表由北塘登陆，经天津至北京，并要求各兵船武装人员不得登岸。英法公使却仗恃武力，坚持要从大沽口溯白河进京。他们蛮横地率舰队闯入大沽口。防守大沽炮台的士兵开炮打击入侵者。炮弹准确地落在侵略军的军舰上，打沉了四艘，打坏了六艘，其余三艘挂起白旗逃跑了。在炮战的同时，侵略军900人企图登陆，也被打退。侵略军死伤几百人。大沽一带人民冒着枪林弹雨，给战士送饼送面，表现了高度的爱国热情。”在编者笔下，这是一曲爱国英雄进行曲，主角是士兵和普通百姓。可是，稍加推敲，便有很多疑问。
从后果看，这一仗显然打错了。翌年，英法联军再次入侵，招致北京被占，圆明园被烧。续订《北京条约》，不但规定原订的《天津条约》继续有效，还招来其他新损失：对英法的赔款分别由四百万两和二百万两一律增至各八百万两；割让九龙司；允许法籍传教士在中国自由传教，“并任法国传教士在各省租买田地，建造自便 ”，为日后连绵不断的教案种下祸根。如果不打，不是对中国更有利吗？
人们理所当然应该追问：公使走哪条路进京，真有那么重要，乃至不惜一战？双方意见分歧有没有认真交涉？真的是士兵自行开炮还是奉命行事？如果是前者，这是触犯军纪造成严重后果的大错，能算是爱国英雄的义举吗？如属后者，是奉了什么样的命令？
复查史实，这根本不是什么爱国英雄的壮举，而是愚昧的咸丰皇帝和僧格林沁亲王犯下的大罪。而且分歧不是教科书说的走哪条路进京，而是要英法使者绕个大弯进天津。当时在僧王幕下的郭嵩焘在日记中留下这样的记录：1859年4月10日“怡亲王至营……言奉旨密商一语：如夷人入口不依规矩，可悄悄击之，只说是乡勇，不是官兵。予曰：凡事须是名正言顺，须缓缓商之。怡邸愦愦可笑。僧邸商酌再三，欲令其由北塘入口，绕道至天津……辩论再三始定局，附片奏明。”
《北京条约》订立后，他更具体叙述了当时的情况：“夷祸成于僧邸之诱击。去岁之役，先后奉诏旨十余，饬令迎出拦江沙外晓谕。洎夷船入内河九日，僧邸不一遣使往谕。去衣冠自称乡勇，薄而击之。仆陈谏再四，又虑语言不能通晓，两上书力争。”曾国藩对他的幕僚说过：“咸丰九年，洋人来换和约，僧忠亲王诱而击沉其船，天下称快。十年，夷人复至……京师不守，几丧天下。某谓僧邸此败，义当杀身以谢天下矣。”他们说的情况，同当时在现场的英国公使卜鲁斯的报告如出一辙。英法军舰6月16日已经到达，直到25日早晨才接到直隶总督恒福的照会，而当时军事行动已经开始。这些史料可以归纳为这么几点：
1．咸丰皇帝决定在一定条件下，可以让官兵假扮乡勇，“悄悄”袭击洋鬼子。同时，他又十余次下令，要先“晓谕”洋人，先礼后兵。
2．僧格林沁忠实执行了“悄悄击之”的旨意，但没有事先晓谕；也坚决拒绝手下大臣的劝阻；并且是要洋人从北塘登陆，绕道至天津的设计者。
3．对这一丧权辱国的横祸，以曾国藩、郭嵩焘、吴汝纶等为代表（还包括李鸿章、冯桂芬等人）的比较清醒的官僚和士绅，已经有过严厉的批评和讽喻。
令人震惊的是：时至20世纪90年代，我们的教科书，仍然按咸丰皇帝和僧格林沁的调子唱歌，不同之处仅在把“乡勇”换成“士兵”！
说到这里，我们可以回答火烧圆明园是不是可以避免的问题了。面对咄咄逼人的强敌，作为弱势的大清帝国一方，明智的选择是严格执行现有条约，避免与之正面冲突，争取时间，改革和发展自己。而当时的政府和士绅，完全被极端的情绪支配，在小事上制造违约的蠢行，结果酿成大祸。如果清政府决策层和有关的地方督抚不是那么愚昧，这场灾祸是有可能避免的。可是，朝野上下的认识水平和专制的决策程序，是历史的积淀，不是朝夕所能改变；侵略的本性又决定了他们不可能成为文明之师；于是，这场灾祸又是难以避免的。
是爱国壮举还是有悖文明行为
再来看看教科书的作者对义和团事件的评述吧。
教科书正确揭露了“八国联军侵占北京以后，烧杀抢掠，无恶不作”；“在八国联军进攻天津的时候……（俄国）制造了骇人听闻的海兰泡大屠杀惨案。俄国军队还强占了中国江东六十四屯，残酷屠杀当地居民。”此外的论述只能说是错误连篇。
一、教科书没有只字提及义和团敌视现代文明和盲目排斥外国人以及外来文化的极端愚昧的行为。
义和团毁电线、毁学校、拆铁路、烧洋货、杀洋人和与外国人及外国文化有点关系的中国人……凡沾点洋气的物和人，必彻底消灭而后快。即使义和团真的立下了“ 扶清灭洋”的伟大功勋，也不能回避它的这些反文明、反人类的错误，何况正是这些罪恶行径给国家和人民带来莫大的灾难！这些都是众所周知的史实，也是中国人不能忘记的国耻，而我们的少年儿童必读的教科书却偏偏闭口不谈。
教科书也谈到拆毁铁路。它是怎么说的呢？“1900年6月……八国侵略军2000多人，由英国海军司令西摩尔率领，从大沽经天津向北京进犯。义和团拆毁从天津到北京的铁道，奋起狙击侵略军。侵略军在廊坊一带被义和团包围，死伤多人，狼狈逃回天津。”如此说来，拆毁铁路不过是抵抗侵略者迫不得已的措施。实际情况怎样？
1900年5月28日（阴历五月初一），直隶总督裕禄致电总理各国事务衙门：“二十九夜（5月27日）先闻涿州至琉璃河一带猝被拳匪将铁路焚毁，讵今早由琉璃河至长辛店一百余里沿途铁道车站桥梁并局所洋房，均有拳匪蜂起焚烧”。与此同时，各地纷纷告急：“刻下电线又阻……至长辛店线阻，由琉璃河至涿州线，被匪徒砍断，所有电均被阻滞。”他们破坏这些设施完全出于对外来事物的敌视，而不是为了抵抗侵略者不得不采取的应急行动。同时，这类行动波及各地，不是局部性的偶发现象。也就是说，这是蓄意破坏财产的罪行，而不是某些史家说的抵抗侵略者的功勋。从时间看，西摩尔军从出发到被迫撤回天津是6月10日至26日之间的事，而在此之前拆毁铁路、电线，焚烧车站、抢掠财产的急报，已纷至沓来。义和团烧杀抢掠、敌视和肆意摧毁现代文明在前，八国联军进军在后，这个次序是历史事实，无法也不应修改。
二、教科书也没有谴责清政府高级官员及义和团乱杀无辜，烧杀抢掠的野蛮、残忍的罪行。
最有代表性的是山西巡抚毓贤的作为。六月初一（6月27日），他将太原洋人办的医院烧掉，同时“将省中洋人，诱令迁居一处。当于教堂内搜出妇女二百一十一口，年老者数人，而五六岁十余岁至二三十岁者居多……于六月十三日，不动声色，带领兵勇，前赴洋人聚居之处，亲自兜拿。该洋人等尤敢拼力抗拒，奴才麾令勇敢数人，冒死突进，将洋人大小男女四十四口，及同恶相济的教民十七名，一齐擒获，立即绑赴市曹，同时正法”；“寿阳县秦锡圭拏获滋事之洋人七名口，押解前来，一并将其立正典刑。是晚北门教堂亦为拳民焚烧，省城洋人教堂已无遗迹”。当时的报刊还报道：“寓晋西人，得京师乱耗。群求毓贤保护。不料竟诱聚而歼之，且手刃数人焉。”
毓贤的行为不是孤立的。所有不思进取的顽固分子，都是传统文化中最落后、野蛮的成分的继承者，这类顽固官僚趁机为非作歹的事例不胜枚举。例如，辅国公载澜是奉旨会同载勋、刚毅“统率”京津义和团的宗室，其残暴就不让毓贤：“京师乱起，载澜从拳匪入人家，大索，得毡布及他物，皆以教民论，扑杀之，虽宗室大臣不免”。
再看看义和团的所作所为吧。前人早已指出，不能把所有参加义和团的民众都视为匪徒，他们不少是盲从的愚民，但混迹其间的确实不少是土匪和流氓。总计在义和团事件中，全国各地1900年6月24日～7月24日期间，被杀外国人231名，其中儿童53名。他们大都死于义和团之手。至于中国的教徒（教民）和所谓 “二毛子”被杀的，更是没有算清的糊涂账，其中绝大部分是被义和团杀死的，官兵也杀了一些。仅山西一省，就有中国天主教徒5700余人被杀。奉天（辽宁）全省“教民人命千余”。“而直隶（河北）全省杀人焚屋之案，几于无县无之。其杀人多者，一县竟至一二千名口”。甚至浙江亦“抢劫、焚毁教民家室至一千余家之众”。
“受害最烈”的北京，当时有关人士留下不少实录：1900年6月18日“城中日焚劫，火光连日夜……夙所不快者，即指为教民，全家皆尽，死者十数万人。其杀人则刀矛并下，肌体分裂，婴儿生未匝月者，亦杀之残酷无复人理”。“法国天主堂在西安门内西什库，刚相（刚毅）尝督兵攻之，亦不能破，拳实不敢前，哗噪而已。拳匪既不得志，无以塞后意，乃噪而出永定门。乡民适趋市集，七十余人悉絷以来；伪饰优伶冠服儿童戏物，指为白莲教；下刑部一夕，未讯供，骈斩西市。有妇人宁家，亦陷其中，杂诛之，儿犹在抱也……毓鼎上疏力争之，谓：‘谋乱当有据，羸翁弱妇，非谋乱之人；优装玩具，非谋乱之物……’疏入，狱已具”。
6月16日，“是日九点中，团匪烧大栅栏德记药房，延烧粮食店、灯市街、观音寺、珠宝市……共计店铺四千余家，火至天明未息。匪禁水会救火”。这个京师最繁华的地区于是毁于一旦。总的说来，“京师盛时，居人殆四百万。自拳匪暴军之乱，劫盗乘之，卤掠一空，无得免者。坊市萧条，狐狸昼出，向之摩肩击毂者，如行墟墓间矣。”这是所谓义和团“革命”的后果之一。
开头，民众与传教士和教民的矛盾令人同情；可是，他们后来的作为远远超过与外来宗教矛盾的界线。事件过后直至民国初年，朝野各界将这个组织定性为拳匪是有足够根据的。
三、令人无法理解的是它对慈禧的专制淫威惹来滔天大祸竟只字不提！
义和团兴起之初，袁世凯就上奏“其用以惑人者，谓能避枪炮。然迭与乡团、教民、兵役格斗，一遇枪炮，辄伤毙多人，瓦解鼠窜……其藉以动人者，谓图灭洋教。然上年春夏间，在曹州、济宁各属，掠教民一千一百余家，并掠及平民二百余家。秋冬间在东阳、济南各属，掠教民六百余家，亦掠及平民百余家。内多掳架勒赎之案，直与盗匪无异。故教民既被其殃，而平民亦多受其害。”而且有些地位比袁世凯更高的大臣（如北洋大臣、直隶总督裕禄等等）也提出了类似的意见。慈禧充耳不闻，比较清醒的众多大臣只好保持缄默，品质不良之辈则乘风转舵，谄上邀宠（如裕禄）。
一个在六年前连一个“敢于犯上”的“蕞尔小国”———日本都无法招架的弱国，居然要同时向包括日本在内的11国宣战！《国际法》传入中国60年后，竟要派兵围攻驻华使馆！
为了决定和战大计，从1900年6月16日开始，慈禧一连四天召集王公大臣六部九卿开御前会议。在会上吏部侍郎许景澄、兵部尚书徐用仪、户部尚书立山、内阁学士联元等人先后提出不能听信邪术、不可围攻使馆、不能主动对外宣战。总理各国事务衙门大臣袁昶和许景澄在两人联名的奏折中写道：“伏以春秋之义，两国搆兵，不戮行人，泰西公法，尤以公使为国之重臣，蔑视其公使，即蔑视其国。兹若任令该匪攻毁使馆，尽杀使臣，各国引为大耻，联合一气，致死报复……以一国而敌各国，臣愚以谓不独胜负攸关，实存亡攸关也。”慈禧不但不接纳这些浅显的常识，而且大发专制淫威，把他们的脑袋砍掉！
同时，包括毓贤杀洋人在内的罪行，大都发生在6月21日下诏与各国宣战、6月24日命各省督抚杀洋人以后。首犯是慈禧，毓贤、载漪等人不过是凶狠的执行者。
四、教科书对一些史料的运用也很不严肃。
“义和团，起山东，不到三月遍地红。孩童个个拿起刀，保国逞英雄。”教科书以突出位置刊载了这一歌谣，说是“义和团歌谣”。可是，笔者孤陋寡闻，读过的现存义和团传单、揭帖等书面材料中找不到可以作为根据的史料。而后来调查的所谓口头传说，往往是后人加工乃至创造的，根本不足为凭。
教科书又说：“北京东单西裱胡同有座于谦庙。为了学习于谦的爱国精神，1900年4月，义和团进城后，把神坛设在这里。”一切学术观点都应拒绝牵强附会，要经得起反驳。载漪、载澜等祸国殃民的满清权贵家里都设有义和团神坛，这又是向他们学习什么？
在我国，除了上述人民教育出版社出版的教科书外，还有一套可供选用的沿海地区教材。号称沿海版，有的地方史实错误更严重，是非观念更加糊涂。
例如，对义和团事件的论述，它增加了这么两句话：“6月中旬以后，义和团群众开始围攻侵略者据点西什库教堂和外国使馆区。清政府却暗中派人给被围困的侵略者送去粮食、蔬菜、酒、水果等，表示慰问。”每句话都错得一塌糊涂！
首先要问：西什库教堂是“侵略者据点”吗？在义和团事件前，这不过是普通的法国天主教堂，没有材料足以证明它是“侵略者据点”。义和团期间，从1900年 6月13日起几天内就将北京大部分教堂和洋楼烧毁，连带烧掉数千家民居和商店，劫余的西什库教堂和东交民巷使馆区聚集了大批逃生的外国人和中国教民。这个教堂的逃生者，在清政府不能维持正常社会秩序的情况下，固守反抗屠杀，于理于法都无可指责。说这个教堂是“侵略者据点”，完全是信口开河。
其次，围攻东交民巷是奉慈禧的旨意，主力是董福祥的甘军和荣禄的武卫中军，是他们犯下的罪行，义和团则是助纣为虐。含糊其词，仿佛此举是义和团自发的爱国义举，不但歪曲了历史真相，也掩盖了清政府践踏国际法的罪行。再次，对西什库教堂和使馆区的进攻，充分体现了专制统治者极端愚昧无知和残暴；时至20世纪 90年代仍然正面予以肯定，这是对国际法的无知，已经沦为对国耻的颂扬，也忘记了“反对封建专制”的责任！
再看第二句。清政府确实曾派人给被围困的外国使馆送过生活日用品，这是奉旨公开进行的，说是“暗中”于史无据。当时，清政府内部比较清醒的大臣一再上奏，要求按照国际惯例保护外国外交人员和外国人；东南各省的督抚甚至公开声明不再承认6月21日宣战后的“伪诏”。迫于这些压力，加上她色厉内荏，要预留“转圜”余地，不得不作出这样的姿态。不管是真是假，这是清政府内部理性尚未完全泯灭的表现。把它与义和团的行动对举而意含贬损，显然是很不恰当的。
对义和团事件和八国联军评述比较全面的同样是香港的教科书。它既谴责义和团“大肆排外，杀教士、教民，连藏洋书、戴眼镜的人都不放过，且到处破坏，烧教堂、拆电线、毁铁路。”“日本使馆书记杉山彬、德国公使克林德先后被杀”；也指出“当时联军纪律极坏，任意焚掠屠杀，其中以俄、德两国军队及英国的印度兵最为残暴。”细致分析了义和团产生的背景：1．民族情绪。2．民生困苦。3．列强侵略。4．教案频生。还全面论述了辛丑条约的内容及它对当时和日后中国的深远影响。任何不抱偏见的人都会承认，这部教科书说的是真实的历史。
如何面对被侮辱和被损害的状况
出现这些现象与中国长期处于被侮辱和被损害的境遇息息相关。面对如是现实，可以有不同的心态。
西方的入侵彻底改变了中国历史的行程。伴之而生的是天朝大国的表象破裂，大量民众在生死线上挣扎。人们顺理成章把这种状况归罪于“洋鬼子”；也谴责统治者腐朽、愚昧、软弱。一个辩论不休难于取得共识的问题是：内因还是外因是导致这个状况的主要根源？
其实，完全可以从另外一个角度提出问题：这个状况迟迟不能改变的原因何在？如果有人说这是因为帝国主义者太凶狠了，这等于什么都没有说。经过长期、复杂、反复的博弈过程，在国际关系中可以逐步建立比较合乎多数人和多数国家长远利益的“正义”秩序。当这个状况尚未出现以前，不会有救世主从天而降，慷慨代你维护国家利益。问题只能归结为面对这样的现实，如何才能走出困境？
海内外的经验证明：后发展国家和地区（殖民地、半殖民地）改变不发达状况，改变被动局面的惟一道路，是向西方列强学习，实现社会生活的全面现代化。成败的关键在国内的改革。这是一个社会运行机制的全面改造过程。对那些文化自成体系，而对外来文化深闭固拒的国家说来，这是十分艰难的过程。以中国来说，从鸦片战争算起至20世纪初实行新政，仅是辩论要不要改革就整整花掉60年！至于改革取向，包括是通过革命手段还是通过渐进的改革开辟前进道路，更是头绪繁复。不过，有一条是肯定无疑的：必须千方百计争取一个和平的国际环境，为国内的改革和建设赢得充分的时间。如果此说大致不差，回头再看义和团，对内，它是与社会前进方向背道而驰的反动事件。对外，乱杀洋人不但是反人道、反文明的罪行，也是极端愚蠢危害中国自身利益的暴行。
有个流行多年为义和团事件辩护的论断：义和团避免了中国被瓜分。早在1989年已故历史学家李时岳先生已经详尽地驳斥了这一诡辩。不但4亿5千万两赔款（相当于当时将近6年的全国财政收入）像一支巨大的吸血管插进中国人的胸膛，而且给沙俄藉口，趁机制造了海兰泡和江东64屯惨案，7000多中国人被杀，江东领土全被吞没，大量俄军进占东北；华北地区在战争中死伤烧杀的损失难以数计。战后的瓜分阴谋更没有停止：英军进攻西藏，占领拉萨；德国派炮舰进入洞庭湖，并要求租借洞庭湖和鄱阳湖沿岸；英国则相应要求租借舟山群岛作为“补偿”！
有人喜欢援引八国联军统帅、德国人瓦德西的这么一段话：“无论欧美日本各国，皆无此脑力与兵力可以统治此天下生灵四分之一，故瓜分一事，实为下策。”证明义和团化解了瓜分图谋。李时岳先生说得好：“瓦德西个人的观感并不能代表德国的政策，德皇一直把瓜分作为对华政策的基点，上述要求‘租借’洞庭湖和鄱阳湖沿岸的行动就是证明。只是由于帝国主义之间的矛盾，瓜分才没有实行。”
把视野放得更宽一些，问题就更加清楚。前人早已指出：甲午战争、戊戌变法和义和团事件是一条割不断的历史链条。说得更准确一些是：甲午战争彻底暴露了大清帝国的腐朽，不少知识阶层从几十年迷梦中惊醒，反思自强运动不敢触及“自由不自由”这个根本问题的错误，形成了第一次群众性启蒙运动，改革也有新进展。是学习西方彻底改革，还是固守传统，不准变革，成了中国盛衰的关键，也是解读这段历史的基本线索。不幸，体现甲午战败后的变革进程进入高潮的戊戌变法以失败告终。戊戌政变标志着学西方、求变革的挫折和倒退；义和团事件不过是政变后固守传统反对变革的反动逆流的巅峰。换句话说，义和团事件对外使中国在被奴役的附属国的道路上继续沉沦，对内则举目皆是国破家亡的图景。
走出把革命粗鄙化的文化心态
2000～2001年之间，引起中国人关注的一个国际事件，是日本的教科书问题。一部右翼势力编纂的历史教科书掩盖历史真相，否认日本政府犯下的侵略罪行，激起包括中韩两国政府和人民在内的海内外朝野人士强烈抗议。这是伸张正义的斗争，而且这是20年间第四次了。1982、1986、1996年都曾出现新修教科书歪曲历史，一再在日本国内外激起公愤。这一日本思想文化领域的顽症，促使许多人形成一个极为深刻的印象：日本人缺乏忏悔意识。人们还进一步追问：为什么会出现这样死不认罪的现象？这是不是大和民族特有的缺陷？
看看上述中国的教科书问题，一个合理的推断是，我们的近代史观也有类似的问题。当然日本是侵略者，中国是被侵略者，这是截然不同的。可是，两者也有共同点：社会的主流文化都对自己的近代史缺乏深刻的反思。
从20世纪初开始，中国的有识之士一再提出要改造中国人的“国民性”。这些先驱用心良苦，但他们没有进一步追问：决定国民性的主要因素是什么？可以说，国民性是一国公民思维和行为方式的特点。任何民族都是从吃人生番演变过来的。作为一个群体，文明程度的高低和野蛮孑遗的大小，决定性的因素是受文化传统和制度制约的自我净化能力的强弱。
被侮辱被损害的屈辱，给中国人构筑了新的思想定势。这突出地表现在长期以来形成的一个似是而非的观念：因为“洋鬼子”是侵略者，中国人怎么做都是有理，都应歌颂。这是爱国主义的要求。
现在的历史教科书就是以此为指导思想的。热爱自己的祖国，理所当然。可是，如何爱国，却有两种不同的选择。一种是盲目煽动民族情绪；中国传统文化中“严华夷之辨”、“非我族类，其心必异”等观念已经深入骨髓。时至今日，余毒未清。新的版本是：中外矛盾，中国必对；反列强、反洋人就是爱国。在史料选择和运用中，不管是真是假，有利中国的就用。另一种选择是：以理性的态度分析一切；是其是，非其非，冷静、客观、全面地看待和处理一切涉外矛盾。
现代化的基本精神就是理性化。如果我们认同这个基本观点，就应该引导中国人往这条道上走，让理性、宽容内在化，成为中国人的国民性，以利各国人民和各种文化和谐共处。在全球化迅猛发展的时代，企业之间和国家之间的利益冲突不可能泯灭；理性地认识和化解矛盾对任何国家和企业都是最好的选择。如果一涉外就是“ 反帝”、“反霸”，非把事情弄砸不可。
例如，法是人类文明的结晶，社会运行的规则。国际条约是有法律效力的。人们可以指责这些规则和条约是列强主导下形成的，不利于弱国和贫苦民众。人们应该不断批判和揭露它的谬误，通过各种力量的博弈，形成新的规则，修订新的条约。可是，在没有修改以前，我们仍然不得不遵守它，否则就会造成不应有的混乱，归根到底不利于弱国和多数民众。
19、20世纪中国人干了不少“无法无天”的事，义和团事件是其中的典型。值得重视的是不但至今有人把野蛮的行为说成是“革命”，而且到了20世纪90年代，有人竟把主张遵守现行国际条约的观点视为应该严加批判的卖国投降观点！
说到底，这是把革命粗鄙化的流毒。
必须清醒地看到，在社会领域，只有引发制度变革的行动，才称得上真正的革命。太平天国和义和团都不符合这个要求。这样的歪曲实际是把革命粗鄙化，迟早总要付出代价。
不能轻视这些错误教育的后果。违反常识理性，以“革命”的名义故意歪曲历史真相，歌颂义和团的直接恶果在“文化大革命”中就暴露无遗。红卫兵火烧英国代办处，是义和团行动的翻版；“破四旧”和“反帝”、“反修”中体现的清除外来事物的疯狂，这些行动体现的内在理路，也与义和团的“灭洋”如出一辙。
上述教科书的编写所呈现的理路，也没有什么不同。它们的共同点是：1．现有的中华文化至高无上。2．外来文化的邪恶，侵蚀了现有文化的纯洁。3．应该或可以用政权或暴民专制的暴力去清除思想文化领域的邪恶。用这样的理路潜移默化我们的孩子，不管主观意图如何，都是不可宽宥的戕害。
为了培育理性的有法治观念的现代公民，以利于现代化事业，现在是纠正这些谬误的时候了。
南懷仁（Ferdinand Verbiest，1623年－1688年}
南懷仁
維基百科，自由的百科全書
南懷仁（Ferdinand Verbiest，1623年－1688年），字敦伯，一字勛卿。耶穌會傳教士.
[編輯] 生平
南懷仁1623年10月9日生於布魯塞爾附近的小鎮彼滕（Pittem），12歲起他進入耶穌會辦的學校讀書，17歲時開始了他在魯汶大學藝術學院學習。魯汶大學是世界上最古老的天主教教會大學之一。在魯汶大學期間，南懷仁系統地接觸亞里士多德的學說，尤其是邏輯學和哲學體系，並通過宇宙論的學習，掌握了天文學、數學、曆法計算、地理等多方面的知識。
南懷仁在1641年9月2日入耶穌會。1658年隨同 Martino Martini神父前往中國，1659年抵達澳門。南懷仁本來在山西傳教，1660年受召前往北京協助湯若望神父。湯若望神父蒙主寵召後，康熙八年三月初一日（1669年4月1日），南懷仁接替湯若望被授以欽天監監副。南懷仁也曾鑄造紅夷炮助清帝國。康熙八年（1669年），南懷仁撰寫《曆法不得已辨》，逐條駁斥楊光先、吳明炫在曆法推算方面的錯誤。針對中國傳統的觀象占候、堪輿占卜等觀念，這一年他還撰著了《妄推吉凶之辨》、《妄占辨》和《妄擇辨》。
南懷仁可能是汽車的發明人[1]。
南懷仁在1688年逝世於北京，清聖祖追贈工部右侍郎，諡為勤敏，與利瑪竇、湯若望埋在同一個墓園，現在位於阜成門外的滕公柵欄馬尾溝教堂。
維基百科，自由的百科全書
南懷仁（Ferdinand Verbiest，1623年－1688年），字敦伯，一字勛卿。耶穌會傳教士.
[編輯] 生平
南懷仁1623年10月9日生於布魯塞爾附近的小鎮彼滕（Pittem），12歲起他進入耶穌會辦的學校讀書，17歲時開始了他在魯汶大學藝術學院學習。魯汶大學是世界上最古老的天主教教會大學之一。在魯汶大學期間，南懷仁系統地接觸亞里士多德的學說，尤其是邏輯學和哲學體系，並通過宇宙論的學習，掌握了天文學、數學、曆法計算、地理等多方面的知識。
南懷仁在1641年9月2日入耶穌會。1658年隨同 Martino Martini神父前往中國，1659年抵達澳門。南懷仁本來在山西傳教，1660年受召前往北京協助湯若望神父。湯若望神父蒙主寵召後，康熙八年三月初一日（1669年4月1日），南懷仁接替湯若望被授以欽天監監副。南懷仁也曾鑄造紅夷炮助清帝國。康熙八年（1669年），南懷仁撰寫《曆法不得已辨》，逐條駁斥楊光先、吳明炫在曆法推算方面的錯誤。針對中國傳統的觀象占候、堪輿占卜等觀念，這一年他還撰著了《妄推吉凶之辨》、《妄占辨》和《妄擇辨》。
南懷仁可能是汽車的發明人[1]。
南懷仁在1688年逝世於北京，清聖祖追贈工部右侍郎，諡為勤敏，與利瑪竇、湯若望埋在同一個墓園，現在位於阜成門外的滕公柵欄馬尾溝教堂。
湯若望
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B9%AF%E8%8B%A5%E6%9C%9B
湯若望（Johann Adam Schall von Bell，1591年－1666年），字道未，耶穌會士，學者。出生於科隆貴族家庭，在義大利學完數學、物理、神學和天文學後，1611年加入耶穌會，1618年前往中國傳教，1620年到達澳門，在那裡學習中文。1623年進京。他在北京宮廷將伽利略的《遠鏡說》和德國礦冶學家阿格里科拉論述歐洲開採和冶金技術的巨著《礦冶全書》（中譯名《坤輿格致》）譯成中文。1630年湯若望第二次來到北京，奉召任職歷局，協助徐光啟編修《崇禎曆書》，並受明朝朝廷命令製造火炮。完成了測算日食和月食的《交食說》，後被御封為欽天監監正，官居一品。1644年清兵入關佔領北京，需要頒布新的曆法，湯若望的「西洋新法曆書」獲得頒行，為「時憲曆」。湯若望深得清朝攝政王多爾袞和順治帝的信任，順治十二年（1655年）受封為通政使，晉一品，封贈三代。康熙三年（1664年）湯若望在「曆案」中被判死刑，1665年被赦免，不久後去世。
他在北京古觀象台觀測天象並編撰曆書的工作室、在天主教南堂的居所以及他的墓地均保存至今，供遊人參觀。他和其他60位外國科學家、畫家和傳教士同葬的北京南堂墓地位於車公庄北京行政學院內。
湯若望（Johann Adam Schall von Bell，1591年－1666年），字道未，耶穌會士，學者。出生於科隆貴族家庭，在義大利學完數學、物理、神學和天文學後，1611年加入耶穌會，1618年前往中國傳教，1620年到達澳門，在那裡學習中文。1623年進京。他在北京宮廷將伽利略的《遠鏡說》和德國礦冶學家阿格里科拉論述歐洲開採和冶金技術的巨著《礦冶全書》（中譯名《坤輿格致》）譯成中文。1630年湯若望第二次來到北京，奉召任職歷局，協助徐光啟編修《崇禎曆書》，並受明朝朝廷命令製造火炮。完成了測算日食和月食的《交食說》，後被御封為欽天監監正，官居一品。1644年清兵入關佔領北京，需要頒布新的曆法，湯若望的「西洋新法曆書」獲得頒行，為「時憲曆」。湯若望深得清朝攝政王多爾袞和順治帝的信任，順治十二年（1655年）受封為通政使，晉一品，封贈三代。康熙三年（1664年）湯若望在「曆案」中被判死刑，1665年被赦免，不久後去世。
他在北京古觀象台觀測天象並編撰曆書的工作室、在天主教南堂的居所以及他的墓地均保存至今，供遊人參觀。他和其他60位外國科學家、畫家和傳教士同葬的北京南堂墓地位於車公庄北京行政學院內。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)