ABSTRACT

The Boxer and Luddite risings were obviously very different historical events, but, as the above quotations indicate, their participants have met very similar fates as historical symbols. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) response to the Boxers during the mid-1920s was strongly positive, as evidenced by the articles in the special 1924 issue of Xiangdao Zhoubao, one of the Party’s main organs, dedicated to the heroes of 1900. CCP historians and propagandists continued to be the Boxers’ staunchest defenders during the half century that followed the publication of Qu Qiubai’s article, and eventually began to praise the Boxers far more unequivocally than Qu would have dreamed of doing himself. Beginning with contemporary accounts of the Boxers’ activities, a variety of types of writings helped shape an image of “Boxerism“ as fanatical and futile violence. The gap between CCP and Guomindang positions vis-a-vis the Yi He Tuan was widest during the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution“.