(Hsu 2000)

Pathikrit Das,
III B.A.(Hons.) History,
St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.

Question: “we support the Ching regime and aim to wipe out foreigners. Let us do our utmost to defend
our country and safeguard the interest our peasants”- public notice of Boxer 1900. What light does the
above mentioned statement throw on the nature of Boxer Movement.

Introduction

The period from 1898 to 1901 witnessed turmoil and uprisings known as ‘Yi Ho Tuan’ or Boxer Movement ,
which was a major peasant uprising marked by anti-Manchu and anti-foreign sentiments. In the period after the
Opium Wars, the nature of Sino-Western relations had changed, leading to a scramble for concessions. This had
exposed the inefficacy of the Manchus. Simultaneously, it had intensified the socio-economic crisis already
prevalent in the 19th century. The Boxer Movement thus expressed the growing discontent against internal unrest
and foreign encroachments. It was the last great popular anti-imperialist movement that shook China in the 19 th
century. This tutorial assignment attempts to trace the causes, nature and impact of the Boxer Movement and its
social relevance in reference to the above mentioned quotation.

From August 1898 to December 1899, Shantung saw a large number of anti-missionary and anti-Manchu riots. In
December 1899, when a British missionary was murdered, the foreign powers pressurized the imperial government to
take action against the Boxers. The Manchus, however, did not respond accordingly. So, in June 1900, the foreign troops
began marching on Peking and the Taku Fort was attacked. On the very same day, the imperial council announced break-
off of diplomatic relations and Tzu Hsi decided to side with the Boxers. On June 21, the Boxers, with the support of Tzu
Hsi, declared war on the foreigners and laid a siege on Peking. It is unclear whether the imperial authority was willing or
if the Boxers had forced it. Nevertheless, they managed to seize control over all foreign elements and legations. The
arrival of a foreign brigade comprising soldiers from Italy, Germany, Russia, Britain, France and Austria liberated the
siege. The foreign troops massacred thousands of Chinese in Peking and the whole city was sacked. With the arrival of
the brigades, the real Manchu intentions were revealed. Tzu Hsi now began to cooperate with the foreigners and the
alliance between the Manchus and the Boxers began to collapse. With this the Boxers swung back to their earlier anti-
dynastic stance. The imperial court stopped meting out any further aid to the Boxers and started to suppress them.
Officials like Li Hung Chang openly condemned the Boxers. By early 1901 the Boxer uprising had been completely
suppressed.

Causes of Boxer Movement

A study of the traditional Chinese society and

The Boxer Uprising can be regarded a multi-causal phenomenon, resulting from a combination of factors such as the
character of traditional Chinese society and economy, impact of Western imperialism on the society and economy and
the role of the Manchus. All of these added to the growing discontent in the 19th century.

The Chinese society was strictly compartmentalized by the principles of Confucianism. Although Western
scholars view Chinese society as being essentially democratic and flexible, we now know that these are
unscientific interpretations based on the theoretical emphasis on mobility seen in Confucianism. The society was
highly stratified and had a rigid and inflexible hierarchical structure. A unique combination of power, wealth and
knowledge defined the gentry or the elite class. Max Weber emphasized on exploitation as the key characteristic
of prevalent social relations within Chinese society, which led to the Boxer Rebellion. Weber referred to the
Chinese gentry as ‘exploiters’ who controlled tax collection and administration and derived legitimacy from the
Confucian value system. The peasantry was the ‘exploited’ class, the taxpayers, who despite the theoretical
emphasis on ‘career open to merit’ could rarely attain gentry status. The growing tax burden and exploitation

1
 caused discontent among them and though they remained placid, the simmering of discontent was always there.
However, peasant uprisings, though a frequent occurrence, were spontaneous and scattered and so easy to
suppress. The growing unrest culminated into agitation, and found expression in the Boxer Movement.

A series of natural calamities in the late 19th century intensified the discontent. The Yellow River flooded frequently after
1882 and, in 1898 it inundated hundreds of villages in Shantung, affecting more than a million people. Similar floods
occurred in Szechwan, Kiangsi, Kiangsu and Anhwei. A severe drought followed in 1900 in most of North China,
including Peking. The Manchu government, due to insufficient resources and inefficient administration, was unable to
repair the public works, adding to the problem.

The late 19th Century also saw a substantial rise in population, due to the peace and stability of the 1860s and 1870s.
Between 1873-1893, the population of China rose by 8% but cultivated land rose only by 1%. This increased the
pressure on land and there was greater fragmentation of land, adversely affecting the production. The high rents and
taxes, due to the obligation on China to pay war indemnity, further worsened the condition of the tenant farmers. Lack of
capital prevented the introduction of technical improvements such as fertilizers, better seeds and better tools. The
peasants went steadily deeper into debt and the number of landless peasants, vagabonds, beggars and emigrants grew.
Emigration often contributed to the economic decline of a village. Only a few villages like Jiangsu and Guandong
continued to be prosperous. Many regions like South Zhili, Henan and Shandong saw steady impoverishment. The
difference between the ‘ruling’ and the ‘ruled’ became sharper and more distinct. This caused great resentment in the
countryside. The Manchus, meanwhile, continued to lead a luxurious and flamboyant lifestyle, oblivious to the
conditions of crisis that prevailed in the 19th century. There were no attempts to curtail expenditure. Manchu kinsmen
continually derived state support, especially the Manchu Bannermen and the Green Standard Army, who made no
contribution to defence and got maximum benefits. They were known as a class of ‘privileged idlers’, who consumed
almost 1/3rd of the revenue. The entire official machinery, in fact, was regarded as parasitic, oppressive and ineffective
and was distrusted and resented by all sections of people. Favouritism, nepotism and corruption were rampant in the
Manchu administrative system. Racial discrimination was openly practiced by the Manchus, reinforcing their alien
identity. Attempts at centralization proved futile and a number of provincial power bases emerged. This rise of provincial
authority and growing Manchu monopoly at the centre also became a crucial factor in the last half of the 19 th century.
The increase in the power of the provincial regimes led to greater decentralization. A large number of popular rebellions
compelled the central authorities to rely on these provincial bases, encouraging provincial autonomy and leading to
further alienation of the Manchus. Several provincial governors like Yuan Shih Kai asserted their independence and
remained neutral during the Boxer Movement. Their indifference provided the Boxers indirect support.The Manchu
Imperial Army was primitive, ill-equipped and undisciplined while the provincial armies and local militias had gained
strength and emerged as far more effective. Hence this period saw the rise of centrifugal forces. The Western military
trainers hired during the Self-Strengthening Movement and during the Reform Movement in 1898, were very unpopular.
Foreign innovations and techniques were distrusted. The Manchus were held responsible for the foreign presence and
this added to the discontent against them. Further, in 1896, the army was demobilized and disbanded soldiers filled the
countryside, as frustrated, healthy young unemployed people. These people joined the Boxers or other secret societies.
Large-scale illegal sale of arms by corrupt army men to secret societies further aggravated the situation. Foreign powers
also aided such sales. All this discontentment laid the ground for the Boxer Uprising.

The failure of the 1898 Reform Movement further led to disillusionment with the Manchus. They were accused of selling
China to the foreign powers. Chesneaux called the Boxer Movement “the crusade of the common man of China to do
something for his country because the government was incapable of doing it”. Reeling under the pressure of foreign
imperialism, the sufferings of the common people were brought to the forefront by the secret societies. These people
were disillusioned by the attempts at modernization, and believed that only their traditional system could restore them
their lost glory and happiness – the Middle Kingdom, within the principles of Confucianism. “The Boxer Rebellion
represented the general sentiment of the people” as opines Chesneaux.

Foreign encroachment was another major cause for the discontent leading to the Rebellion. Since the defeat of China in
the Opium Wars, foreign powers had been encroaching upon Chinese sovereignty. Following China’s defeat by Japan,
the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki was imposed on China in 1895. Japan had imposed heavy war indemnities on China
after the Sino-Japanese War. Between 1895 and 1898, unable to pay the indemnity, the Manchu government borrowed
370 million taels of silver from foreign countries, while the annual revenue of the treasury was 80 million taels. Thus
there was nothing to sustain the economy. The foreign banks started dictating terms to the Manchus and this led to
further impoverishment. The interest was high and harsh political conditions were attached. The loans were secured by
important items of Chinese government revenue, from the custom duties and linkin (inland transit tax). They were not to
be repaid in a lump sum or before the due date, to prevent the Ching government from contracting any new loan to pay

2
off the old ones. Among the Chinese masses, the imperialist expansion that followed the Sino-Japanese War provoked a
violent reaction. Throughout the later half of the 19th century, foreigners took control of China and forced her to make
humiliating concessions. Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia all claimed exclusive trading
rights to certain parts of China. They used loans, railways, leased areas, reduced land tariffs and right of local
jurisdiction, of police power and mining exploitation to divide the nation into “spheres of influence”. The United States
proposed an “Open Door Policy” where all nations would share China. It guaranteed equal trading rights for all and
prevented one nation from discriminating against another within its sphere. The economic and social impact of
imperialism was a crucial factor that led to the Uprising. This can be traced back from the early 19th century. In the initial
phase of Sino-Western relations, merchant capitalism was prevalent. During the 1860s to 1880s, foreign intervention was
through foreign aid and technology in the sphere of industrialization (Industrial Capitalism). The 1880s and 1890s
witnessed foreign encroachments in the form of Finance Imperialism, i.e., export of capital instead of export of goods.
There was an increasing influx of foreign goods and indemnities, leading to a serious trade deficit, which was met solely
by increased taxes. By the end of the 19th century the country saw decline of village industries and domestic commerce,
and rising unemployment due to the influx of imports and expansion of foreign trade, industries, as well as foreign
capital. China was thus reduced to the status of an informal colony by the end of the 19th century.

The farming community also felt the repercussions of the changes in commerce and industry that were caused by foreign
imperialism. Farmers laid increasing emphasis on sowing cash crops like tobacco and cotton in response to the demand
for them. However, while an increased variety and quantity of Chinese agricultural products were exported, their prices
rose much more slowly than imported products. This was because the foreigners controlled the customs tariffs and the
credit system which financed foreign trade. Moreover, the fact that the Chinese market was dependent on the world
market in certain sectors meant that the peasants were victims of international speculation and fluctuations. The rise of
foreign trade, along with industrialization and the growth of large towns and districts, further impaired traditional
agrarian economy. Chinese farming now developed on new economic patterns, which were a combination of economic
exploitation from capitalism, the comprador system and the traditional Chinese agriculture. There was also greater
tendency towards absentee landlordism and harsher exploitation of the peasants. The late 19th century also witnessed a
decline in Chinese handicrafts, mainly due the import of foreign cotton cloth. This was also attributed to the flourishing
Japanese cotton textile and silk industries that pushed Chinese handicrafts to the background. It also contributed to the
ruin of the home handicrafts, which supplemented most farm incomes. This increased the resentment to foreign presence.
In addition the development of steam navigation and the railways reduced countless numbers of porters, boatmen, and
innkeepers to poverty. Since they contributed to the enrichment of the minority and the impoverishment of the majority,
the disturbances affecting the Chinese economy crystallized social antagonism. They were one of the major causes of
popular risings, including the Boxer Movement.

In the period from the 1860s to the 1890s, missionary activities in China intensified. There were property issues between
the Roman Catholics and Chinese peasants. Churches were often built on the ruins of the Chinese temples and the
towering Western buildings were seen as exhibiting arrogance. Churches were thus common targets of attack. The
Christian doctrines also clashed with traditional Chinese principles, which created resentment in the people. Often
Chinese beliefs were ridiculed. Certain Christian practices, like having closed-door meetings without sex discrimination,
were regarded suspiciously. Further, the Chinese converts were often anti-social elements who had converted to escape
Chinese jurisdiction. They were given preferential treatment. Thus, between the 1870-1890s, numerous anti-missionary
riots broke out following the various Unequal Treaties which China signed with the foreign powers. Most important
among these was the Tientsin Massacre of 1870, where interestingly even the gentry participated. The result of the riots
was that the existing secret societies were further strengthened and new societies also came into existence, e.g. the Big
Sword Society (Ta Tao Hui) with the aim of exterminating foreigners.

Nature of the Movement

The exact origins of the Boxers are disputed. The Boxers in their association with other secret societies such as the Eight
Triagrams and the White Lotus Society, and some heterodox groups had emerged spontaneously in 1898, on the
borders of Chihli and Shantung. The White Lotus Society claimed to have Ming origins and its influence explains the
anti-Manchu sentiment of the Uprising. But in 1899, the Boxers organized themselves into a separate society called the
‘Righteous and Harmonious Fists’ (Yi Ho Tuan). Its members practiced an animistic magic of rituals and spells which
they believed made them impervious to bullets and pain. The first outbreak of anti-missionary violence occurred in 1899
in Shangdong, where imperialist encroachment and missionary activity were the highest. It continued to develop,
however, in Henan, Anhui and Jiangsu. The Boxer Movement was a broad-based movement with a multi-dimensional
character. Leadership was provided by the ‘Boxers’, as they were called by the Westerners. This was because they

3
practiced martial arts and old-style calisthenics (exercises performed in order to attain physical and mental superiority)
with closed fists in order to be able to become invisible and indestructible, even against bullets. The Movement had a
wide base, including peasants, some urban poor, disbanded soldiers, and later on even the gentry. Women played an
important role as well. The military organization formed the nucleus of the entire Boxer structure, which was better
organized and more disciplined than the Manchu army, not indulging in looting and plundering. However, their
weakness was the lack of a single military leader, a hierarchical setup and a set code of conduct.

With regard to the nature of the Boxer Movement, different scholars subscribe to different views. Western historians
describe the Movement as a frenzied outburst or a “blind xenophobic reaction against all progress and attempts at
modernization introduced under imperialist impact”. Chinese Communist historians regard the Movement as a
‘nationalistic patriotic revolution’ or a ‘peasant movement’ with a strong patriotic leaning based on the traditional
patterns. For these scholars, the Boxer Rebellion served as a model for future movements directed against the Manchus
and the foreigners. They tended to underplay the limitations and overemphasize the revolutionary aspect of the
Movement. Both views represent two extremes. Others, for example, Victor Purcell carefully analyze every aspect of the
Uprising to conclude that it cannot be given any one particular characteristic trait. Fairbank regards the Uprising as a
“direct response to the deepening crisis in the lives of the Chinese people”. Chesneaux gives importance to the
peasant aspect of the Uprising and states clearly that the movement cannot in any way be called a mere xenophobic
reaction. In order to have an objective understanding of the nature of the Boxer Movement, we shall analyze it under five
broad categories.

The first category under which we can analyze the nature is whether the Movement was anti-foreign in general or
specifically anti-missionary. There is no denying that the Movement did have an anti-missionary colouring. This was
because firstly, the missionaries were the only symbol or ‘visible signs’ of foreign presence, especially in rural China.
The rural people tended to equate imperialism with the missionaries, which is why the missionaries became a target of
anti-foreign sentiment. Secondly, there were some fundamental ideological differences between Christianity and
traditional Confucian philosophy. The Boxers used these differences, and in the absence of a definite programme, anti-
Christianity was deliberately made part of their agenda. Thirdly, we cannot overlook the tactless acts of the Christian
missionaries e.g. their ridicule of Chinese beliefs, building Churches in a manner that they towered over Chinese
temples, disregard of feng-shui etc. The Boxers made these acts also an agenda for agitation as it gave them propaganda
value.

Regarding the view that the entire Uprising was nothing more than an anti-missionary outburst, there are various points
of view. G.N. Steiger in ‘China and the Occident’ opined that the movement was not specifically anti-Christian. On the
other hand, A.H. Smith in his work ‘China in Convulsion’ put the entire blame on the Christian missionaries for
provoking the Chinese masses by their arrogance and display of superiority, which ultimately led to the Boxer Uprising.
Victor Purcell argued that since the movement was specifically anti-foreign and anti-imperialist, it is but natural that it
would be anti-Christian too. But he pointed out that the Chinese were against the missionaries not because of their
religion, but because they were foreigners and all foreigners were symbols of imperialism. The Boxers called the
foreigners ‘primary devils’ and the Chinese converts were called ‘secondary devils’. They looked at the missionaries as
agents of foreign imperialism and not as religious entities. There seems to be an element of truth in all these varying
views. The Boxers looked upon the missionaries as yet another variety of foreign power trying to establish control over
traditional Chinese institutions and culture.

The survey of the Boxer Uprising as a peasant or a plebian character invites Chesneaux’s intervention. points out that
according to a survey carried out in China in 1960, 70% of the Boxers were found to be of peasant origin, which is why
Chinese historians often term it as a peasant uprising. However, the Boxer Movement had a plebian character too. This
was probably a result of the affiliation of the Boxers with the White Lotus Society, which had a definite plebian
character. The Boxer Movement was also supported by different sections of society, both urban and rural, and rich and
poor. The participants included peasants, boatmen, peddlers, monks, teachers, porters, craftsmen, traders, merchants and
disbanded soldiers. Members of the gentry along with their families also participated. Anti-social elements such as salt
smugglers and bandits also joined the movement. Women of all ages, too played a significant role, and were divided into
the following branches depending on their age – Red Lanterns (12-18 years), Blue Lanterns (middle-aged women),
Green Lanterns (widows) and Black Lanterns (old married women). Many classes emerged as a result of foreign
presence, including the compradors. They also supported the Boxers along with professionals, technicians and students.
The overseas Chinese also played an important role. Thus, various social classes fought a united battle.

4
The second debate begins with the Western historians, who tend to present the Boxer Movement as a “xenophobic
outburst” directed against all progress introduced by the foreign powers in China. However, the fact that the Movement
spread so widely, indicates that it had deep-rooted causes and touched the hearts of the common Chinese people. The
Movement had a strong anti-Manchu leaning, which would not have been the case had the movement been only anti-
foreign. The Movement, in fact, had a strong nationalistic and patriotic foundation. The Viceroy Li Hu Chang, in a
memorial to the Emperor, refers to the Boxers as having “strong nationalistic and patriotic sentiments”. A popular
Boxer slogan was ‘Overthrow the Ching, restore the Ming’, which is indicative of their strong anti-Manchu feelings.
The personal diary of the Emperor Chang Shan tells us than the unorthodox sections in China also viewed the movement
as a genuine patriotic outburst which was spontaneous and broad-based. The Boxer Uprising cannot be called a frenzied
outburst or a xenophobic reaction because there were significant reasons for the Movement to break out other than mere
blind ‘hatred’ towards the foreigners. As discussed earlier, the role of the Manchus, the traditional Chinese socio-
economic structure and natural calamities, all combined with the role played by the foreign powers in China to bring
about the Boxer Movement. Further, though through the phases of merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism and finance
imperialism foreign encroachments had increased leading to a simultaneous increase in the hatred felt by the Chinese
masses towards the foreigners, this hatred cannot be called xenophobic. It was a natural outcome of the economic
changes that took place in China following the arrival of these imperialist powers. Christian missionary activity too was
not de-linked from this economic exploitation by the foreigners of China. All these factors clearly indicate that the Boxer
Movement could not have been a mere xenophobic reaction to the foreigners.

The nature and organization of the leadership of the Boxer Movement is the third question of academic debate. G.N.
Steiger firmly denied that the movement had a religious character since the movement wasn’t essentially anti-Christian.
The Boxers were not a religious sect with a heretical organization. They had come into existence with the blessings of
the Manchu government. Queen Tzu Hsi’s decree of 1898-99 gave the Boxer organization an official status. According
to Steiger, the sole purpose of this organization was to control of the growing advance of foreign imperialist powers.
Heretical would suggest that the movement was unorthodox, anti-government and anti-state, which Steiger pointed out it,
was not. He takes away all the individuality of the Boxer movement ad looks at it as a part of the Manchu militia. On the
extreme opposite we have the views of Chester Tan, who in his ‘Boxer Catastrophe’ argued that the Boxers had
religious affiliations and a heretical character.

Victor Purcell divided the Boxer Movement into phases, where at different times the movement developed a religious
and heretical character, and at times a character similar to the militia and adopted an anti-Manchu stand. He saw a very
important relationship between the Boxer Movement and three secret societies, namely, the White Lotus, the Eight
Triagrams and the Big Sword Society. He opines that in the early stages, the Boxer Movement was “anti-Manchu”,
their slogan being ’Overthrow the Ching, restore the Ming’. At this stage, the Boxer organization did have a heretical
character. But with the growth of foreign intrusion, the Boxers became pro-Manchu and at this stage adopted a militia-
like character, in response to the willingness shown by the Manchus to help the Boxers. Following a similar approach,
Hu Sheng suggested that military status was bestowed upon the Boxers by the imperial authority themselves, using a
formal decree, which is why they are often referred to as a ‘legally constituted militia’.

In this context, Victor Purcell opines that in the initial stages the Boxer struggle was directed against the Manchus.
At this stage, the Movement was heretical and also anti-dynastic. This anti-dynastic character emerged because of
the growing prominence of the hardcore secret society leadership. It could also have been the result of the absence
of a definite policy of the Manchus towards the Boxers. The Boxers also came to be known by a different name.
Whereas before 1899 they were called Yi-Ho Tuan, post-1899 they came to be known as Yi-Ho Inan (Righteous
and Harmonious Militia). The Boxer Movement, despite this brutal suppression however, had certain positives.
Firstly, it exposed the inability of the Manchus to deal with the foreigners and hastened their fall. In the decade
that followed, the court belatedly put into effect some reform measures (Late Ching Reforms). These included the
abolition of the civil service examination, educational and military modernization patterned after Japan, and an
experiment, albeit half-hearted, in constitutional and parliamentary government. These however failed. In this
atmosphere, independent revolutionary forces emerged, for example, Sun Yat Sen. In fact, future movements,
especially the 1911 Revolution, were all clearly directed against the Manchus. The Uprising also put a temporary
break on the foreign attempt to partition China. The pace of Finance Imperialism also slowed down. It marked the
birth of Chinese nationalism in the new century, which differed significantly in nature and character. The
patriotism of the Boxers may be seen as proto-nationalism. The Marxist historians called the Boxer Movement a
primitive form of patriotic peasant uprising with the right motives but the wrong methods. Others refer to it as the
last important event of the 19th century. Chesneaux goes to the extent of referring to it as the “first great movement
against modern colonialism”. Thus, despite its immediate failure, the Movement is a significant landmark of
Chinese history.

5
Another aspect of the Boxer Movement that is fiercely debated is whether the movement was pro-dynastic or anti-
dynastic. There are various viewpoints regarding this issue. G.N. Steiger, for example, denied any religious affiliations
or a heretical character in the Boxer Movement. He refers to the Boxers as a ‘legally constituted militia’ loyal to the
Manchus with whose blessings they had come into existence. On the other hand, Chinese Communist historians call the
Uprising an ‘anti-Manchu peasant movement’.

Conclusion

There were certain inherent weaknesses in the organization of the Boxer Movement. The absence of any definite
leadership, hierarchy and ideology, especially when compared to the Taiping Movement, were key factors in their
ultimate failure. The Boxers did not question Confucianism and were also less revolutionary than the Taipings. The
Boxers were conservative and laid great emphasis on spiritual and physical superiority. It was essentially a “traditional
Movement”, which sought to remove all modernizing and Western elements, and in this context the age-old concept of
Chung-kuo was invoked and restored once again. They never spoke of any land reforms or attacked feudalism. The only
progressive element in their ideology was the focus on equality of gender. The common bond was due to a commitment
to Taoist, Confucian and Buddhist thought. These beliefs were showing signs of weakening by the end of the 19th
century. Certain elements like the participation of anti-social elements also made it unpopular. Though the Boxer
Uprising was a massive upsurge it failed in its anti-imperial and anti-feudal aims. Also, after declaring war, it should be
noted that the Boxers did not take full control of Peking and bring about the desired changes. In this context one can also
question the revolutionary character of the Boxer rebels. Hu Sheng has tried to explain this in terms of the absence of
initiative. When we compare the Boxers with earlier peasant movements like the Taiping, we see that what the Boxers
lacked was an organization and ideology, both of which are vital in the event of such a takeover. The Boxers contrarily
refrained from doing anything but protect the Manchus.
Thus, The Boxer Movement expressed China’s growing unrest, her resentment against foreign encroachment and,
above all, the will of the Chinese people to resist. As Schurmann and Schell put it, “the Boxer Rebellion
represented a fusion of two distinct currents of 19th century China – humiliation by the West and decline from
within, the former expressed in the powerful West’s encroachment and the latter expressed in popular internal
rebellion.”

Bibliography

. Hsu, C.Y. Immanuel- The Rise of Modern China

. Beckmann, M. George- The Modernization of China and Japan
. Schell ,Oliver and Schurmann, Franz – Imperial China: The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
. Prucell, Victor- The Boxer Uprising: A Background Study
. Chesneaux, Jean , Bastid, Marianne, and Berger, Claire-Marie- China From The Opium Wars To The
1911 Revolution( translation by Anne Destenay)
. Fairbank, K. John, Reischauer, O. Edwin and Craig, M. Albert- East Asia: The Modern Transformation
. Foreign Language Press- The Yi Ho Tuan Movement of 1900, ‘History of Modern China’ Series (Peking
1976P)
. Class notes and extracts from Magic folders