Does the boxers deserve a bad rap?

The boxers do deserve a bad reputation from many different perspectives.

First of all, the Boxers were very superstitious and liked to blame others. They had blamed the foreign missionaries and the Chinese Christian for the drought in Shandong that lasted for 2 years, the natural disaster had caused famine because the crops weren’t able to grow. The boxers were very superstitious and practiced the traditional Chinese culture and religion, such as a Confucianism and Buddhism. Because they were ethnocentric, which they think that their religion and cultures are the best, they could not accept the religion that came from another country. Also, since the humiliations China had received from the Opium war sparked up the anger of the Boxers to the foreigners. But the Boxers made this uprising not only because of that, it is also because they were starving and they wanted food. This is a main reason that  led to the boxer’s rebellion against the.

Secondly the Boxers were very violent and brutal. During the 55-days siege around the international legations, they killed a superfluous foreigners and Chinese Christians. They killed them in such a violent way and even tortured them by not giving them food, which caused some of them starve to death. No one was excused, even the elderly and children were killed. This shows the boxers were lack of sympathy for foreigners.

Lastly the Boxers deserve a bad reputation because they did their uprising in such an unjust way. Although the missionaries were somewhat corrupted, but the boxers killed them in such a violent and injustice way. Violent could be a justice act sometimes. For example, the suffragette action was somewhat similar to the boxer’s rebellion. It happened around the time of 1903 in Britain, when the boxer rebellion just ended. It is an action to support that the women can vote as well as the men. They used violence to destroy public properties such as a market to bring people’s attention and listen to their story. In the end this action had success. But the government had to pay a colossal amount of money for the property lost during the suffragette action. So violent could be justified. But the major difference between Suffragette and the boxer’s rebellion is that in the Suffragette, nobody was killed or harmed directly. There is no actual assault or damage on people, only the properties. That is what separate a violent action being justice and one does not. The boxers killed a lot of people and had done it in such a cruel and brutal way. So the boxers really do deserve a really bad reputation from my evidence and reasoning above.