Boxer Rebellion: A Contested History

Since its occurrence, the Boxer Rebellion has continually provoked diverse and shifting interpretations. Historian Paul Cohen, in his influential work History in Three Keys (1997), characterizes the rebellion as both intellectually complex and emotionally charged, emphasizing that interpretations have consistently evolved in response to shifting political conditions, ideological perspectives, and academic interests.

Initially, both Western observers and many early-twentieth-century Chinese intellectuals viewed the Boxers negatively, dismissing them as “superstitious,” “backward,” and “irrational barbarians.” In the Western imagination, the Boxers became symbolic of the so-called “Yellow Peril,” a widespread racist and political concept at the time, describing a fabricated existential threat posed by East Asian peoples to Western values and society. Similar critical attitudes also emerged among Chinese intellectuals who sought modernization and reform of the country. For instance, Chen Duxiu, a leading figure in China’s New Culture Movement (1910s–1920s), harshly criticized the Boxers as representatives of “autocracy, superstition, and theism,” framing their actions as evidence of China’s backwardness.¹ 

Chen Duxiu 陈独秀, “Kelinde bei” 克林德碑 [“The von Ketteler Memorial”], Xin Qing Nian 新青年 [New Youth, or La Jeunesse] 5, no. 5 (October 15, 1918): 458. 

However, over the next few decades, attitudes dramatically shifted. Chinese intellectuals increasingly recast the Boxers as patriotic and anti-colonial resistance fighters. Chen Duxiu himself significantly revised his earlier viewpoint, later describing the Boxer movement as a legitimate response to foreign aggression.²   Similarly, communist intellectual Qu Qiubai argued that despite the presence of superstition, the Boxers represented a genuine national liberation movement opposing imperialism.³

Chen Duxiu 陈独秀, “Women duiyu yihetuan liangge cuowu de guannian” 我们对于义和团两个错误的观念 [“Two Misconceptions We Have about the Boxer Rebellion”], Xiangdao 向导 [The Guide Weekly] no. 81 (September 3, 1924): 645–6.

Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白, “Yihetuan yundong zhi yiyi yu Wusa yundong zhi qiantu” 义和团运动之意义与五卅运动之前途 [“The Significance of the Boxer Movement and the Future of the May Thirtieth Movement”], Xiangdao 向导 [The Guide Weekly] no. 128 (September 7, 1925): 1167–72.

Interpretations continued to evolve after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), official narratives celebrated the Boxers as heroic proletariat fighters bravely resisting both foreign and domestic oppression.⁴  Since the 1980s, scholarly perspectives have further developed, adopting a more nuanced view that situates the Boxer uprising within broader social contexts, such as rural life, secret societies, regional religious beliefs, and local economic dynamics.⁵

Although most contemporaneous Western accounts frequently emphasized Boxer brutality and xenophobia, using these portrayals to justify Western military retaliation, there was dissent even within Western circles. For instance, certain American Protestant critics openly condemned Western exploitation in China and the harmful consequences of missionary activities. The Protestant journal The Sentinel in 1900 notably argued that the Boxer uprising primarily resulted from “the greed and injustice that has driven China to desperation,” rather than from an inherently anti-Christian sentiment.⁶

The Sentinel of Liberty, August 16, 1900, 507.

Citation

1. Chen Duxiu 陈独秀, “Kelinde bei” 克林德碑 [“The von Ketteler Memorial”], Xin Qing Nian 新青年 [New Youth, or La Jeunesse] 5, no. 5 (October 15, 1918): 458. Cited in Paul A. Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth (Columbia University Press, 1997), 229. The original text reads, “现在世 界上有两条道路：一条是向共和的科学的无神的光明道路；一条是向专制的迷信的神权的 黑暗道路。我国民若是希望义和拳不再发生，讨厌像克林德碑这样可耻纪念物不再竖立，到底是向哪条道路而行才好呢？” English translation from this exhibition is “Currently, there are two paths in the world: one is the bright path toward republicanism, science, and atheism; the other is the dark path toward autocracy, superstition, and theism. If our citizens hope that events like the Boxer Rebellion never happen again, and detest shameful monuments like the von Ketteler Memorial ever being erected again, which path should we ultimately choose to follow?” Clemens August Freiherr von Ketteler (1853–1900), the German Ambassador at Beijing, was killed during the Boxer uprising.

2. Chen Duxiu 陈独秀, “Women duiyu yihetuan liangge cuowu de guannian” 我们对于义和团两个错误的观念 [“Two Misconceptions We Have about the Boxer Rebellion”], Xiangdao 向导 [The Guide Weekly] no. 81 (September 3, 1924): 645–6. Cited in Cohen, History in Three Keys, 244.

3. Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白, “Yihetuan yundong zhi yiyi yu Wusa yundong zhi qiantu” 义和团运动之意义与五卅运动之前途 [“The Significance of the Boxer Movement and the Future of the May Thirtieth Movement”], Xiangdao 向导 [The Guide Weekly] no. 128 (September 7, 1925): 1167–72. Cited in Cohen, History in Three Keys, 248.

4. Cohen, History in Three Keys, 261–84.

5. Liu Tianlu 刘天路 and Su Weizhi 苏位智, “50 nianlai yihetuan yanjiu pingshu” 50年来义和团研究述评 [“A Review of Boxer Rebellion Studies in the Past Fifty Years”], Wenshizhe 文史哲 [Literature, History and Philosophy] no. 6 (2003): 158–65.

6. The Sentinel of Liberty, August 16, 1900, 507. Cited in Jeffrey Rosario, “Protestant Anti-Imperialism and the Vindication of the Boxer Rebellion, 1899–1901,” Diplomatic History 46, no. 2 (2022): 349.