Bloody Christians - 20-30 millions killed in 14 years

[Doubting_Thomas]

Predicted line of apologist counter-argument:
1) denial. Try to argue that the rebellion had nothing to do with Christianity. Question the death toll estimates and try to allocate as many as possible to the Qing. More perversely, try to focus death tolls on the mass suicides of Qing garrisons - suicide is a sin.
2) anger. Ad-hominen attacks on other forum members. Argue about who knows more history.
3) bargaining. Bring Mao back into it and try to get agreement that Hong was a communist. mention hitler in an attempt to create circular debates. Find the atheist who questions some tangential detail of the overall history and back them up, feeding off someone else's credibility. Try to get concessions from atheists on tangential points and present it as an intellectual draw.
4) depression. Ignore the thread for a few days. Say atheists won't listen etc.
5) back to denial. Apologists don't accept so denial reappears. Blame western powers as "controlling the Qing" (which is a false notion for this period btw). Try to undermine the Christianity of Hong, try to redefine it as non-Christian.

---

You would. Your grasp on history is weak.

Do you actually know anything about Chinese history?

you posted that the Qing were controlled by the colonial powers in the years 1850 to 1864. What makes you think that?

[Anomalocaris]

Hong Xiuquan is better seen as just 19th century manifestation of a vicious cycle which has plagued China since China was first unified into an Empire. Basically, every dynasties that started strong has seen high rate of initial economic growth, which led to large scale population growth that outstripped agriculture development, leading to misery, corruption, and end up being toppled by large scale bloody peasant rebellions after a few centuries. Hong Xiuquan is just one in a series of such malthusian reapers in Chinese history.

I agree on this part of the wider context, and of course Hong's was not the only rebellion at this time (the Muslims also rebelled for example). But this doesn't remove the Christian agenda from Hong's specific rebellion.

None of his predecessors were christian.

He was a convert, and sought to spread Christianity. In the end his kingdom was totally destroyed so that was the end of the road for that specific Christian stain strain.

His immediate successor, Mao, was communist and atheist. So the fact that he had something to do which christianity was incidental.

No. Mao was not really 'immediate' or a direct successor. There were other rebellions after (boxer rebellion probably most famous) and of course the Qings were pretty much finished by the Wuchang rebellion not Mao's subsequent communist one.

thanks for the thought-out view. I don't agree that Hong's attempt to create a Christian China can be breezed over so easily as coincidental to his motivations.

Other peasant rebellions that came near the end of strong dynasties have also been characterized by dominance by cults, philosophies and creeds that are way outside of mainstream Chinese culture. For example the yellow turban rebellion that effectively ended the central authority of the Han dynasty during second century AD. Most cult inspired rebellions were notably bloody. Most pushed an utopian vision to succeed the current dynasty, led by some allegedly semi-divine personage such as the leader of the rebellion himself. Hong's rebellion fits exactly into this mold.


There is little to distinguish Hong from his predecessors in Chinese history. The only differences are:
1. His strange cult happen to be Christianity, previous rebels have also championed bastard versions other foreign cults.
2. His rebellion happen to be witnessed close up by the west.

I have to disagree about your interpretation of boxer rebellion. I don't think it is fundamentally similar to the hong rebellion or mao's communist rebellion

Hong, Mao and their predecessors fundamentally aim to topple existing central power and replace it with a phillosophically substantially different regime under their own personal rule. The boxer rebellion aimed not to topple the central government, but to remake the world and restore existing order to its idealistically rightful place.

If boxer rebellion had succeeded, what would follow would not have been a fundamental reordering of society as envisage by Mao, or hong, or their predecessors. Instead it would be a continuation of the existing imperial system, but with a new power behind the throne selected by the boxers.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I like reading about history and thought I had at least a decent summary overview of Chinese history, but I saw an article on BBC today about a war in 1800s which I wasn't aware of. I think many of us Westerners sort of lump most 19th century Chinese history into the Opium wars and boxer rebellion.

At the time China was ruled by the Qing dynasty (aka the Manchus). Buddhism was widespread but largely a peasant religion along with folk superstitions. The ruling classes followed Confucianism. However, Western powers were interfering and this included sending Christian missionaries.

One Protestant missionary (probably an American, Rev. I. J. Roberts who preached illegally) converted and baptised a seemingly bitter failed-applicant for Qing civil service, Hong Xiuquan. Hong quickly decided that he had revelations from God and Jesus which told him that he was the younger brother of Jesus (not sure if that's literal or not, Chinese culture often talks of non-relatives as 'elder brother') and set out to create a Christian Kingdom in China by the sword.

It was called the Taiping rebellion and cost 20-30 million lives. Most were civilians and many died of the famine and disease that accompany such war. In one battle about 100,000 people perished (battle of Nanjing). Both sides committed horrific war crimes, and some 600 cities were destroyed.

Much of his Christian theology is conveniently considered heretical by major Christian doctrines. Oddly, although it was ahead of its time in terms of gender equality, it was incredibly against genders even meeting, let alone mating. Even married couples were forbidden to sleep together at one point. Among the many moral laws imposed and punished inhumanely, polygamy was banned, including the Chinese custom of concubines.

Guess who had concubines though? Yes, Jesus' hypocritical little brother Hong.

Ironically the rebellion ended in part because the English and French assisted the Qing in suppressing it, for reasons of trade.


20-30 million people killed for the "Great Peaceful Kingdom of Heaven".

In truth, this wasn't a Christian rebellion. Indeed, the man claimed something extraordinary. However, I believe that you fail to see the ethnic tensions beneath the whole Christian thing. The Qing dynasty was an ethnic Manchu dynasty. This was just one of the many rebellions that happened during those times. And I could tell you this that the man you speak of just now, is probably considered a national hero in China, despite the deaths that were caused due to the rebellion.

[Brian37]

Oddly, although it was ahead of its time in terms of gender equality,

Where do you get that from? The bible is just as sexist as any holy book. Eve from the begining is scapegoated in a trap that God set for her. She is a prop and the story is to subjugate women. And all they say about Masry is that she poped out a kid and said thank you, and then said some stuff at the cross, but nothing inbetween. She is merely a prop.

Gender equality happend, in spite of Christianity, not because of it. But the rest of your post does not surprise me at all.

[Polaris]

Oddly, although it was ahead of its time in terms of gender equality,

Where do you get that from? The bible is just as sexist as any holy book. Eve from the begining is scapegoated in a trap that God set for her. She is a prop and the story is to subjugate women. And all they say about Masry is that she poped out a kid and said thank you, and then said some stuff at the cross, but nothing inbetween. She is merely a prop.

Gender equality happend, in spite of Christianity, not because of it. But the rest of your post does not surprise me at all.

Actually it's really the Jewish who were the pioneers of more-or-less (ok less) gender equality. It seems extreme now, but the views about the treatment of women were actually liberal compared to the cultures around them....even say when the Egyptians had female rulers, it was recorded as being against their wishes. The only culture I really notice treating women with more respect at the time in the Middle East were the Persians.

[Darkstar]

Where do you get that from? The bible is just as sexist as any holy book. Eve from the begining is scapegoated in a trap that God set for her. She is a prop and the story is to subjugate women. And all they say about Masry is that she poped out a kid and said thank you, and then said some stuff at the cross, but nothing inbetween. She is merely a prop.

Gender equality happend, in spite of Christianity, not because of it. But the rest of your post does not surprise me at all.

Actually it's really the Jewish who were the pioneers of more-or-less (ok less) gender equality. It seems extreme now, but the views about the treatment of women were actually liberal compared to the cultures around them....even say when the Egyptians had female rulers, it was recorded as being against their wishes. The only culture I really notice treating women with more respect at the time in the Middle East were the Persians.

Quite right. Christian morals are merely a product of the flawed morals of the period in which they were created. It isn't Christianity's fault that it was created in that era. It is Christianity's fault that it still follows some of the bad teachings, though.

[Anomalocaris]

In truth, this wasn't a Christian rebellion. Indeed, the man claimed something extraordinary. However, I believe that you fail to see the ethnic tensions beneath the whole Christian thing. The Qing dynasty was an ethnic Manchu dynasty. This was just one of the many rebellions that happened during those times. And I could tell you this that the man you speak of just now, is probably considered a national hero in China, despite the deaths that were caused due to the rebellion.

Actually, prior to 1949 and the communist take over, he was considered to be the worst that could possibly be imagined in the Chinese scheme of good and evil.

To start with, his conduct was the full and complete antithesis of the Confucian ideal. That alone would make him virtually subhuman. To add to that he was an adoptee and purveyor of "croaked cults", which is regarded as not only an offense against natural goodness of the realm, but also an unspeakable effort to reinflict the evil influences that are thought to have caused many particularly unfortunate periods in Chinese history.

Only after 1949 was he rehabilitated by none other than Mao. Mao regards him as something of a forerunner to Mao himself and his rebellion a failed developmental prototype to mao's own communist revolution.

Incidentally, much of the blood that flowed from the hong rebellion was actually shed by the Qing imperial forces. To fight against the rebels, the imperial army hired many western mercenaries to modernize and lead the combat formations. During this period, especially as the imperial forces eventually rolled up the rebels, it carried out numerous brutal reprisals and massacres on the direct order of the imperial court. Many were carried out against previously agrred terms of surrender or cease fire. In one case 300,000 surrendered rebels, including women and children, we're massacred on imperial orders in direct violation of the terms of surrender agreed to by the imperial forces. The stories of qing atrocities flowed out of china in the accounts of the western mercenaries, which were often wildly popular in the west and serialized in major newspapers. In someways the conduct of the Qing forces during hong rebellion was a watershed moment in western perception of china.

Prior to 180s, the west had a remarkably idealized view of china, as reflected in the writting of Russeau, Voltaire, Leibniz, etc, perhaps as a result of earlier accounts dating back to Marco polo. After the taiping rebellion, china was generally regarded in the west as brutal, cruel, despotic and backwards.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Chuck, I'll take time to discuss your points but I need to be at a proper computer when I do. On the whole we are agreeing, except on the relevance of the Christianity bit.

In truth, this wasn't a Christian rebellion. Indeed, the man claimed something extraordinary. However, I believe that you fail to see the ethnic tensions beneath the whole Christian thing. The Qing dynasty was an ethnic Manchu dynasty. This was just one of the many rebellions that happened during those times. And I could tell you this that the man you speak of just now, is probably considered a national hero in China, despite the deaths that were caused due to the rebellion.

yeah per the second post of the thread and subsequent debate I don't think anyone is arguing that social inequality and ethnic tensions were not a big part of it. But it was still a Christian rebellion as well as that. In the same way that there was a muslim rebellion at the same time.

The hero bit is an interesting aside. Yes, thanks to Mao, Hong is something of a national hero, although apparently this is changing as the communist regime now has more in common with the Qing than the taiping, and is nervous of peasant revolt. The Han great general who opposed the taiping on behalf of the Qing (forget his name) was/is regarded as a traitor to his race. But this is changing and he too is becoming an acceptable hero figure. His wisdom, loyalty and the fact that despite the opportunity to make himself head of a new dynasty, he didn't. In part, time heels and this episode is becoming historical rather than political, but that process takes time in dictatorships.

[Anomalocaris]

My point was not that he wasn't motivated in part by some version of christianity. My point is Hong's christianity fits perfectly into the mold of just another "croaked cult" which inflicts itself upon China after the powerful, wealthy and expansionist dynasties in Chinese history reaches its zenith, and is sliding down the slope of decline. Chinese culture at the grass room level encorugaes certain parts of the peasantry to adopt and act out foreign semi-apoclyptic cults during bad times. If it weren't Christianity, it would probably be something else.

In every society there is a fraction of impressionable fools who can be made to buy any bullshit. But in the traditional Chinese society, there is a rather strong and evident horror of anything that might smell like "croaked cults". This is the result of a long history in which peasant rebellion led by one "croaked cults" or another have always presaged period of turmoil, civil war, downfall of esteemed dyansties, an general worsening of the world under the heaven.

This is why the communist government's suppression of the Falunggong cult is greeted with general approval in China, followers of Falunggong generally despised out of general cultural norm. This is also one reason why christians are treated as deeply suspect and Christianity has difficulty making headway in china despite efforts of missionaries.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Chuck, like I keep saying I agree on much of what you say. Maybe my original posts on the topic are misleading so I'll clarify. I am not saying that the Taiping Rebellion was solely the fault of Christianity, I am merely highlighting an example where a Christian started a particularly bloody war in the attempt to create a Christian kingdom of sorts. I generally do not agree with the commonly trotted out examples of Hitler, Stalin and Mao as proof that atheism is evil and/or leads to atrocities. But my disagreement is on history and logic, not simply that it's unpalatable. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't prove God's existence.

But, if Christian apologists use the Stalin/Mao argument, then by their own standards Hong is proof of the opposite. So the example might be helpful to atheists who come across this argument.

Now, I do think Christianity was likely a contributing cause in this specific rebellion in so far as it probably legitimised Hong's own delusions to himself - if Hong had not been converted, and armed with the "good book" would he have been able to galvanise the support he did? He'd need to write his own 'foreign cult'. The idea that if Hong didn't start a rebellion, someone else would is not very useful - we have no way of knowing whether that alternative history would have been more or less bloody.


Aside, I think we should be careful of reading too much into Social Cycle Theories - patterns are easy to spot in retrospect. Humans are pattern seeking mammals, it's easy to draw parallels and make connections, and underestimate the uniqueness. Mao wanted history to tell that Taiping rebellion was connected to his revolution etc.

We can say that revolts at that time were 'inevitable', but that doesn't mean that in 1845 you could accurately predict the timing or nature of the Taiping rebellion without a lot of specific intell. Hong's reasons for starting the rebellion were personal, he merely capitalised on Christianity and popular ethnic unrest.