One of the most significant events of Cixi's years in power was the so-called Boxer Rebellion (1900). The Boxers, as they were known in English, were members of a group known in Chinese as Yi He Tuan--"the Society of Harmonious Fists"--due to their belief that they could make themselves invincible to their enemies by engaging in certain ritual motions that resembled boxing. The Boxers, who were predominately peasants, were virulently xenophobic, angered by what they saw as the arrogant and evil actions of foreigners in China, at a time when many Western countries (and Japan) had established spheres of influence and even colonies in various parts of the country. They were also incensed by the activities of Christian missionaries and hated Chinese who converted to Christianity. Eventually, the Boxers would began a campaign of terror and violence that would lead to the deaths of many Westerners, including Christian missionaries, and Chinese converts. This in turn led to military intervention by the Western powers and Japan, ending in the occupation of China's capital Beijing and in China's government being forced to pay a huge indemnity.
Chang's account of this watershed event in modern Chinese history is quite interesting, but at one point in the book she seems to blame the Christian missionaries for being at least partially responsible for instigating the Boxers' attacks on them. She tells us:
For the average villagers and small-town people, anti-Western feeling was mainly directed at the Christian missions established among them. By now, there were more than 2,000 missionaries living and working in China. Being foreign, they easily become targets of hate when times were bad. The inflexibility of some priests did not help. Animosity arose particularly when there was a drought, which inflicted protracted agony on the peasants. At such times, the villagers often staged elaborate ceremonies and prayed to the God of Rain, in the desperate hope that they might survive the coming year. This was a matter of life and death, and all villagers were required to participate in order to demonstrate their collective sincerity. Many Christian missions held that they were praying to the wrong God and condemned the ceremonious as 'idolatrous' theatre.' E. H. Edwards, for twenty years a medical missionary in China, wrote, 'It can scarcely be conceived by foreigners (to whom the theatrical displays are senseless and absurd) what hold they have upon the people, and what immense sums are spent upon them every year.' Thus the missionaries would forbid their converts to pay their dues or to take part. As a result, when the drought was prolonged, the villagers blamed the foreigners and converts for offending the God of Rain -- and causing them starvation. When mandarins explained this to the priests, the answer was unyielding, as Edwards observed: 'The officials further asked the missionaries to urge the Christians to pay such dues in order to prevent further troubles. To this request there was, of course, but one answer; and it was further explained to the officials that attendance at theatres was not only discountenanced by the Protestant Church in China, but that if any member was found to frequent them habitually he was disciplined. (pp. 259-260; emphasis mine)
It is curious that the author refers to what are evidently Protestant missionaries as "priests" (does she think that this a suitable term for all Christian clergy?). However, what is most astounding is her apparent incredulity that Christians would believe that "the God of Rain" was "the wrong God" and would view the ceremonies in honor of this putative deity as "'idolatrous theatre'." Does she not understand basic Christian theology? Moreover, does she not realize that what she labels "inflexibility" could be seen as upholding an essential tenet of one's faith? It is especially surprising that Chang, who has lived in the West for many years, would seem so unsympathetic to the idea of people sticking to their principles, a notion widely praised in Western culture.
Curiously, I have noticed that Chang's lack of sympathy for the "inflexibility" of Christians in 19th century China is shared by certain authors writing about ancient Rome. In more than one book I have seen the author express exasperation at the unwillingness of early Christians to sacrifice to the Roman emperor (see this previous blogpost). Their attitude seems to be: "Silly Christians, why didn't they realize this was no big deal?" Apparently, for Chang and these other authors, Christians should have just been more "flexible." Hmm...
Image of Jung Chang from Wikimedia Commons