More news from China over the ten days from February 15 to February 25, 1900. The most aggressive German missionary to China, Bishop Johnan von Anzer, returned to Europe to meet with the heads of state, including the Pope. His aim, as the Times explained, was to “induce all the European Governments interested to join in an attempt to convince the Peking Government of the necessity of suppressing all combinations and demonstrations against foreigners, and, if necessary to enforce this jointly….” At the end of the article came a brief line that illustrated the closeness between missionary activities and state imperialism, as well as serving as a nifty shot across the bow of the Catholic Church. “Emperor William,” the Times intoned (Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany), “attaches great importance to Bishop von Anzer’s counsels.” [1]
Meanwhile, the Times did not mention the Boxers. Other secret societies, however, were causing a ruckus, one which the British Navy had to deal with: “In the early part of last month, the crew of a steam launch from the British gunboat Tweed…had a lively fight with pirates, who are known as the ‘Order of the Red Flag.'” [2] And here I thought piracy was a modern problem? The Times did pause to print a sociological explanation of Chinese Secret Societies, however. Such societies, the Times announced, were similar to American unions or clubs.
|
Member of Secret Society After Fight |
“Many are trade unions as simple as those which prevail in this country.” The Times continued “in their origins, these societies were laudable…and then their degeneration–inevitable in any country, but how much more so in China?–set in.” The story warned, darkly, that “wherever the Chinese go they take their secret societies with them. And it may be taken as a rule that every Chinaman belongs to one of them. The most innocent and well-meaning may be a member of one of the most criminal.” More, those secret societies and their members indulge in mysterious and violent practices: “Sometimes these societies get up fights, when at the signal–the beating of a gong in a special manner–peaceful citizens will be seen to rush from their shops, armed with murderous-looking tridents, swords, spears…and other instruments of offense that one might never have suspected they possessed.”[3]
Finally, Wu Tingfang’s public relations tour of the United States continued apace.As I discussed in the last post, the Minister from China seemed to be intent on wooing his American hosts socially as well as diplomatically. Another week and another gala event showcased that approach. This time, it was the celebration of George Washington’s birthday at the University of Pennsylvania, highlighted by the dedication of a new law school building.
![]() |
Penn Law School |
Minister Wu was the “principal guest of honor and orator of the day.” He was “enthusiastically received by the large audience, and the university men greeted him with their well-known college yell,” the chanting of “Rowbottom” over and over again.
Wu’s speech picked up the theme of Washington’s birthday. “The name of George Washington,” he said, “is by no means unknown in China. To every Chinese student of modern history his life and achievements are familiar….It might seem at first sight paradoxical to say that we Chinese hold Washington in higher estimation for what he did not do than for what he actually did for his country. History has given us innumerable examples of great warriors, eminent statesmen, devoted patriots, who we regard with wonder and respect. Such are Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon…But where can we find another instance of entire subordination of personal ambition to the public welfare? The love of power which is innate to every man seems to have been controlled by a higher sense of public duty….The only historical characters I can think of who resemble Washington are Yao and Shun. These two great monarchs reigned in China…”
![]() |
Cincinnatus |
Note the subtlety of Wu’s speech. He applauds Washington for his civic virtue as compared to (European) strong-men. Who does Washington resemble most in this? Not the figure who has become the canonical example of this–Cincinnatus of Rome–but two Chinese statesmen. The U.S. and China resemble each other in the probity of their historical leaders while Europe is prey to men overwhelmed by their “love of power.” Wu then went on to discuss America’s position in Asia. “This Republic is young, and this is the first time she has acquired colonies 10,000 miles away.” Where to look for inspiration on how to handle America’s new position in the western Pacific? Washington’s farewell address! “I have recently read Washington’s farewell address and what struck me most was the foresight and transcendent wisdom exhibited….” And then came the pivot. For what Wu was interested in putting forward was not a Washingtonian foreign policy in Asia,, but a Monrovian one. “Twenty-seven years afterward, President Monroe issued his caveat against foreign aggressions against foreign aggressions on the American continent…It was not entirely a new doctrine, but a liberal interpretation of the sound principles laid down by Washington….The question now arises whether it is apt time for this country to extend the Monroe Doctrine to Asia.” [4] In essence, Wu wanted the United States to treat the western Pacific as it did the Caribbean, and bar other foreign powers from the exploitation of that arena.
In a succession of speeches, Wu had affirmed the links between the U.S. and China, noted the common mercantile interests, admonished the Americans to be polite, and then followed it up by flattering the nation’s founder and suggesting a course of action likely dear to the heart of a newly imperial power. It was a performance of skill and delicacy, albeit in service of an idea that was insanely impossible. That China could make no other suggestion in the spring of 1900 suggests just how weak she was.
[1] 20 Feb 1900.
[2] 18 Feb 1900.
[3] 25 Feb 1900.
[4] 23 Feb 1900.
13 comments
February 25, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jonathan Dresner
The comparison of Washington to Yao and Shun is interesting, but has to be taken with a serious grain of salt: Comparing him to the sage-kings of old is the safe and conventional way of praising a monarch, and their record was sufficiently obscure that you could get away with praising quite a variety of monarchs with the same model. It’s very much a tic in the historical discourse of confucianism.
I’m a little surprised he didn’t compare Washington with Yu, the third of the sage-kings and founder of the Xia dynasty. That would have been the most appropriate comparison, I think, had he actually been interested in a proper historical parallel.
February 25, 2009 at 12:00 pm
ekogan
Such societies, the Times announced, were similar to American unions or clubs.
Is that a positive or a negative association in 1900?
February 25, 2009 at 12:07 pm
kid bitzer
“their degeneration–inevitable in any country, but how much more so in China?”
fucking awesome. comedy gold.
“the necessity of suppressing all combinations and demonstrations against foreigners”
i love these old words for conspiracies, like “combination”.
February 25, 2009 at 12:19 pm
JPool
It’s easy to read this as motivated speech, as a PR maneuver, and the last bit very much seems to be. What would be interesting to me, but which I’m unequipped to do, would be to position it in terms of how it fit into wider Chinese discourses on leadership.
It reminds me of Benedict Anderson’s metaphor of “the other end of the telescope.” He relates an occasion where Sukarno delivered a speech, which Anderson was translating for an embassy official, in which he praised Hitler as a “great nationalist leader.” (Kwame Nkrumah did the same thing, listing Hitler alongside Mazzini and Lenin as those authors who influenced the development of his nationalist thought). Anderson’s point was that, beyond being ineffective in communication with embassy officials (the one he was translating for stormed off in a huff), Sukarno’s discussion of Hitler shows how these (Western) familiar figures can take on new meaning in unfamiliar contexts.
February 25, 2009 at 12:47 pm
TF Smith
In reference to this sentence:
“…Where to look for inspiration on how to handle America’s new position in the eastern Pacific?”
I think you mean the western Pacific – i.e., adjacent to China and the PI – in terms of extending the Monroe Doctrine.
The Doctrine already covered the eastern Pacific, since the eastern Pacific is part of the Western Hemisphere….
February 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm
silbey
Jonathan–interesting. I don’t think it changes my point about comparing Washington to a Chinese figure while holding up the bad guys as European.
ekogan–The article pushes it as a positive one, I think.
kb–yeah, this stuff keeps getting better.
jpool–I would love to know how George Washington actually appeared in Chinese political discourse (as opposed to how Wu *said* he appeared), and it would be a fascinating analysis. I don’t know that anyone’s done that for China…
TF Smith–oops! Changed.
February 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jonathan Dresner
I would love to know how George Washington actually appeared in Chinese political discourse
The only reference I can think of offhand to US Revolutionary figures is in the anti-Qing rhetoric of Zuo Rong, but I admit that I’m not a specialist there. I would imagine, though, that G.W. would have been a fairly prominent figure in the missionary-led educations.
February 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Erik Lund
Didn’t both Yao and Shun abdicate in favour of sage advisors? That makes the comparison with Washington apt, whereas Yu founded a dynasty. So that would be Jefferson.
February 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm
grackle
Another pretty wonderful post, Silbey. I’m grateful that there is someone still interested in history in this neighborhood. Many thanks.
February 25, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Jonathan Dresner
Didn’t both Yao and Shun abdicate in favour of sage advisors? That makes the comparison with Washington apt
True enough, if that’s the comparison he was making (I don’t seem to have access to the Proquest archive via my library, so I haven’t been able to see the original articles).
Yu founded a dynasty. So that would be Jefferson.
I’m going to plead the…. “Not going to get in the middle of fights that I don’t know anything about” amendment.
February 26, 2009 at 10:42 am
Erik Lund
Good fight not to get into right now. Sorry, been thinking about the Whiskey Rebellion, election of 1800, and James Fenimore Cooper a great deal lately.
February 27, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Nora Bombay
I just want to say that I am loving this entire series of posts. It’s a fascinating look at an era I really know very little about.
February 28, 2009 at 6:02 am
silbey
Thanks, Nora. They’re fun to do.