The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (II)

In chapter seven, Esherick explains how the tension in Shandong gradually mounted throughout China in 1899. He quotes a letter by Robert Hart (1835 -1911), inspector general of maritime customs(中國海關總稅務司) who had created the Chinese Imperial Customs in 1863. He was at that time in Beijing and noted storm clouds were gathering on the horizon.1 On May 28, 1899 in a letter to his acquaintance at London he wrote:

"I have been worried - I can't tell your how much! - by the troubles of China. British doings at Kowloon have been very aggravating: Russian demand for Peking-railway has been a thunder bolt: German action and military movement in Shantung have outraged the people: and everywhere there is a feeling of uneasiness spreading . . . Some Chinese say that revolt and disorder are fast coming on - that the rioters will wipe out every foreigner they come across. . . ".2

From the above, we can see that Hart had an accurate sense of the impending crisis in China. In chapter eight Esherick makes an analysis on who were the "true" Boxers. He also disputes the theory that Boxers were an offshoot of martial art groups associated with the White Lotus (白蓮教). 3 One argument he uses is that "identity of name is by no means proof of identity of origin". (to be continued)

Notes:
1.Esherick, Joseph. The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1987, page 183.
2. Ibid., 183.
3. Ibid., page 220.