Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
A number of years ago, I saw an older physician reading a book with an intriguing title---God's Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan, by Jonathan Spence. Like most Americans, I know very little about Chinese history. I certainly had no idea that there was a massive civil war in 19th century China that by most estimates killed around 20 million people.
Twenty. Million. People.
By comparison, the American Civil War, which took place in roughly the same time period, took around 700,000 lives (military, disease, civilian, etc.). I'm not a historian, and I read the book a long time ago, but this story sticks with you.
The leader of the Rebellion, Hong Xiuquan, was a failed civil service aspirant, from a non-dominant ethnic group. After failing his civil service exam multiple times and listening to some Christian missionaries, he had a vision that he was the younger brother of Jesus, and somehow used his insanity to capitalize on existing ethnic and economic tensions. He amassed a remarkably large, brutal, and fanatical army, replace existing religious restrictions with his own, and enforced morality where he held control.
This maniac took over most of south and central China. His "Heavenly Kingdom" ruled millions of people, and had it's capital in Nanjing. In one battle for Nanjing 100,000 people were killed.
So, basically in modern times, out of the minds of most Westerners (who were admittedly preoccupied with killing each other), a wacko religious visionary managed to take over most of China, causing the deaths of millions of people. How do we not know about that?
Like many theocracies led by charismatic rulers, when he died, things fell apart. Military support from the West helped the Qing dynasty recapture most of the country.
The Qing re-instituted their brand of oppression (which was probably marginally better than Hong's) and things went back to "normal" after a decade or so.
Normal.
A middle-class guy declares himself Jesus's brother, takes over the biggest country in the world, millions die. He also declared women equal, stopped foot binding, and women served in his army. Traditional Confucianism relied strongly on subjugation of women, and one thing this nut-job saw clearly was that half the population was available for recruitment.
It makes you wonder---where else are there large, poor, oppressed populations waiting for a delusional theocrat to come along and harness their power?
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
A middle-class guy declares himself Jesus's brother, takes over the biggest country in the world, millions die. He also declared women equal, stopped foot binding, and women served in his army. Traditional Confucianism relied strongly on subjugation of women, and one thing this nut-job saw clearly was that half the population was available for recruitment.
I'm no expert in Chinese history either. But it occurs to me that a large part of that paragraph, perhaps most of it, would also apply to one Mao Zedong. (The part about claiming to be Jesus's brother is the only part that I know doesn't fit; Mao was a Marxist nutjob rather than a pseudo-Christian nutjob.) And as with Hong, the West supported Mao's political and military enemies.
Posted by: Eric Lund | June 18, 2008 8:43 PM
In fact, Mao apparently lauded Hong as a liberator of the proletariat.
Posted by: PalMD
| June 18, 2008 8:44 PM
Spence is a pretty good author on Chinese history. I haven't read this one, though.
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2008 9:00 PM
I'm quite sure the American Civil War took around 600,000 lives, and that was just military personnel. Wikipedia gives 360,000 Union and 258,000 Confederate. Of course Confederate records are quite spotty.
Posted by: Ray C. | June 18, 2008 10:14 PM
I'm pretty sure I left out a zero...
Posted by: PalMD | June 18, 2008 10:16 PM
It makes you wonder---where else are there large, poor, oppressed populations waiting for a delusional theocrat to come along and harness their power?
Vote Jindal for Vice-President!
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 19, 2008 1:00 AM
"where else are there large, poor, oppressed populations waiting for a delusional theocrat to come along and harness their power?"
Yes, We Can
Posted by: jnovitz | June 19, 2008 3:13 AM
It used to be better known in the days when people read books. Jules Verne wrote one of his "extraordinary travels" about 19th century China, and it discusses also the Taiping Rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribulations_of_a_Chinaman_in_China
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | June 19, 2008 3:48 AM
Probably not a good way of dealing with it.
Posted by: Dianne | June 19, 2008 4:05 AM
Don't you people know your Flashman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_and_the_Dragon
Posted by: csrster | June 19, 2008 6:46 AM
"Like most Americans, I know very little about Chinese history."
Don't blame us; they keep changing the way they spell everything. How's a person supposed to keep up???
Posted by: Grant Canyon | June 19, 2008 9:10 AM
The Taiping forces were in fact defeated by a British 'nutjob', albeit of a mild sort. General Gordon made his name fighting slavery in the Sudan, then was recruited to lead a mixed Sino-European 'Ever Victorious Army'. Which indeed it proved to be.
I read somewhere that the Taiping messiah committed suicide by eating gold leaf. Gordon was of course sent back to the Sudan and died fighing Islamic fundamentalists, led by the famous Mahdi. So Gordon's record against self-styled messiahs was a bit patchy.
I think I got most of this from my reading of Eminent Victorians by Lytton Strachey, though Borges also mentions the rebellion in A Universal History of Infamy.
Oh, and the name Taeping (variant spelling) was given to a British tea clipper. Rather bad taste.
Posted by: valdemar | June 19, 2008 12:34 PM
Normal.
Some same difference.
A middle-class HERO declares himself Jesus's brother, takes over the biggest country USA in the world, millions die. He also declared women equal and women served in his army. Traditional Christianity relied strongly on subjugation of women and one thing this nut-job saw clearly was that half the population was available for recruitment. Stop beating about the BUSH.
Posted by: charlax | June 19, 2008 3:04 PM
Why is it that a non-crazy hasn't done as much for gender equality?
Posted by: TheNerd | June 19, 2008 5:32 PM
"Why is it that a non-crazy hasn't done as much for gender equality?"
Because only a crazy will try to shift the status quo. Remember they are only crazy if they lose - if they win, history sees them as insightful rather than crazy.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 19, 2008 7:14 PM
This is interesting. We may need to call in a consult.
Posted by: PalMD
| June 19, 2008 7:19 PM
Obama vs Jindal 2012
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | June 19, 2008 8:13 PM
Hi Pal--I don't really go along with the notion that Bush's wars have really struck a blow for gender equality--women have been serving in the U.S. armed forces since WWII, so that's nothing new. Based on news reports about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of the power that religious fundamentalists hold in most cities and towns in Iraq, I'd say that Bush's wars have resulted in a devastating blow to women's rights in those countries. (Not to mention the numbers of U.S. citizens who were mistreated by their fellow troops and raped by military contractors, and who can't find justice now in the U.S....)
To the question (I think this is the question, anyway) as to why no non-crazy President has advanced the cause of gender equality: well, Bill Clinton wasn't bad in terms of women's rights and gender/sexuality issues. He pushed FLMA through, the VAWA, and appointed two strongly pro-choice justices to the SCOTUS. On the other hand, he pushed "welfare reform," which hurt women and children, and the DOMA (although, he was running for re-election against a very hostile Congress at that point, 1996, and was under pressure to tack rightward.) But, I think the larger answer to this question is that leftist, progressive, and moderate men benefit from the existing sex/gender hierarchy as much as conservative men do. We've seen the left-wing and progressive press express just as much disgust and contempt for Hillary Clinton--a DEMOCRAT whose policies in some key areas (health care reform) were actually more progressive than her last remaining opponent's policies--as the right-wing press ever did in the 1990s. (In fact, the left was running some of those very same scripts, unedited!)
So, IMHO, I think we can safely say that the New Left/New Progressives are just as sexist as the Old Left. I am too young to know anything about the old left through other than the history books, but many of the criticisms of the Old Left and Civil Rights/Black Power movements by feminist women of all colors in the 1960s and 70s really rings true today. Meet the new boss: just as retrograde and sexist as the old boss!
Posted by: Historiann | June 20, 2008 11:45 AM
The comparison with Mao seems apt - he too adopted and modified a western ideological system and used it to rally the Chinese people against foreign - Japanese - rule (recall that the Qing were Manchus, and even in C19 IIRC the Manchus monopolised the most powerful positions in the state). In another parallel to Hong, Mao added himself to the "Holy Trinity" of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Despite the brutality of Mao's rule, and the disaster of the "Great Leap Forwards", his reunification of the country and early land reform probably laid the basis for the recent revival of China as a great power. Interesting then to speculate what would have happened if Hong had won - and to wonder if Hong has been given a bum rap to any extent, history being written by the victors.
Any scholars of Chinese history around to give a more informed opinion?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 6:27 AM
I learned about this in middle school social studies. "Chinese" Gordon and the various historical events he was involved in took up at least a week of class time.
It would be nice if our schools taught the lessons of history a little bit better. British Imperialism seems like something we should all educate ourselves on before we repeat too many more of their mistakes.
Posted by: bc | June 27, 2008 7:41 AM