Home > Speaker's Corner

Chinese History - is "Wise83" correct?

Skibi
16 Apr 07, 13:57

Originally posted by soul_rage:
That's coz he bo bian, under public pressure. I think the PAP has been so arrogant that they thought they could get away with this move.

I cite an example of the past on why dynasties fall. Emperors rule dynasties. Usually the founding emperor of the dynasty is one that understands the commoners' pains, and does not lead a life of overindulgence.

A few emperors down the road, the corruption creeps in. The new emperor starts using people's taxes to overindulge, resulting in unhappiness in the commoners, and slowly sow the seeds of destruction

Distribution of wealth is an important consideration in a society. Keep too much wealth at the top, and risk a revolt of all the poor (coz 80% (in singapore this could be more) belong to the poor. The rich is of a much smaller percentage).

To keep the people happy, wealth should be distributed to the people, in turn keeping stability in the society.
Originally posted by wisefool83:
Not really... corruption has always existed throughout China's history, doesn't matter which era of a dynasty. A few of the emperors who are well-known for their thrifty habit did not really produce much of a results too. Han Hui Di of the Han Dynasty and Jia Qing of the Qing Dynasty are both famous for being thrifty and benevolent. But their political abilities has been seriously doubt. On the contrary a number of the high spenders such as Han Wu Di and a number of the Tang Emperors drove China to its golden age.

The Chinese has a habit of equating poor officials as good officials, but in fact a number of officials who are famous for their integrity has very limited ability. Like the famous Bao Gong; in actual history, he has very limited investigative ability and he is only liked by the people because he is not corrupt. But if you want to measure how much he has done......hmmmm. On the contrary, Lee Hong Zhang, whom many did not like so much, is famous for being a corrupt official. A china friend of mine's family used to live on the same street with this official and had recorded that bribes to Lee had been sent into his house by carts. Yet this corrupt official is also known as the Brismack of the East and his ability has nevertheless, prolonged the existence of the Qing Dynastyl. Incidentally, he is also one of the pioneer in modernising China. General Guo Ziyi of the late Tang Dynasty has also not been very clean in terms of corruption, but somehow he is still well-like and his ability shows why.

So ya, greed and ability... as much as we Chinese people would like to fantasize, do not always have a direct relationship.
Bao Zheng passed the highest-level imperial exams and became qualified as a Jinshi at the age of 29. He was appointed magistrate in Kaifeng the capital of Song dynasty.

Li Hong Zhang despite his ability lost the 1894 Sino-Japanese war due to corruption. Li Hong Zhang's most famous student is Yuan Shi Kai who seized the throne to become emperor for a few weeks before his empire collapsed, causing the whole country to descent into chaos for the next twenty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhang
The fact that some of his men were extremely corrupt further disadvantaged China from the beginning of the war. For instance, one official used ammunition funds for personal use. As a result, shells ran out for the some of the battleships during battle such that one navy commander, Deng Shichang, resorted to ramming the enemies' ship. The defeat of his relatively modernized troops and a small naval force at the hands of the Japanese greatly undermined his political standing, as well as the wider cause of the Self-Strengthening Movement.

Since the First Sino-Japanese War (1894), Li Hongzhang has been generally a target of criticism and was portrayed in many ways as a traitor to the Chinese people, an infamous name that lives in history. Well-known negative comments from common Chinese people, such as "Actor Yang the Third is dead; Mr. Li the Second is the traitor", have made the name Li Hongzhang a notorious trademark for traitors. Such a message is also echoed through textbooks and other forms of documents.
Rock^Star
16 Apr 07, 14:37

If I'm not wrong, Bao Gong is fiction right?

Was there ever in Chinese history, a magistrate who has a moon on nis forehead?

Lee Hongzhang's most famous disciple is Yuan Shikai? I don't think so. Yuan simply consulted him on some matters.
wisefool83
16 Apr 07, 14:50

1)Bao Zheng passed the highest-level imperial exams and became qualified as a Jinshi at the age of 29. He was appointed magistrate in Kaifeng the capital of Song dynasty.

2)Li Hong Zhang despite his ability lost the 1894 Sino-Japanese war due to corruption. Li Hong Zhang's most famous student is Yuan Shi Kai who seized the throne to become emperor for a few weeks before his empire collapsed, causing the whole country to descent into chaos for the next twenty years.

Hi,
I have no doubt of Bao Zheng's qualification in passing the imperial exams, but passing the exam hardly says anything about a person's ability in his official duties. Su Dongpo, who is of the same dynasty as Bao Zheng was noted for commenting on the imperial exams; The Ce Lun section is able to test a person's ability in literature but not official ability whereas the poem section has no use in testing a person's both literature and official ability. (The exams in Song Dynasty test students on lit including poems, there's another section called Ce Lun, which is perhaps somewhat similar to our GP in A level.) A page in history (forgot which book) records an incident where Bao Zheng went on a "secret investigation" trip, but his cover was blown without him knowing so and the people who he was investigating layed a trap and fed him with false information which he took for real.

As for Li, much is still under discussion by the historians, but with regards to the Sino-Jap War, the Beiyang Fleet's "defeat" is accorded more to tactical and strategic error rather than corruption among the officials. The notable Battle at WeiHaiWei where Deng Shichang famously sacrificed himself by attempting to perform water kamikaze is normally used to protray as the Chinese main defeat. A point to be note however, that the battle had been accepted by most historians as a tactical defeat but strategic victory for China as the Strategic aim for the Chinese then was to escort a delivery mission, despite the destruction of a large part of the Chinese fleet in the battle, the delivery mission was a success and the Ching troops were delivered to the Korean Battlefield unmolested. At the same time, the Japanese fleet was also grounded after the battle due to heavy damages and immediately after the naval battle, most newspaper then were unsure which country had actually won the confrontation.
The real lost for China in the Sino-Jap war was during the land battles which Li had much lesser in participation.
Corruption was nevertheless a major cause in China's weak state in late 19 century, but for the Sino-Jap war, it was not the single cause, nor even its main as most people believed. A large part of it was also due to inner power rivalry which was very common tru out China's history.
wisefool83
16 Apr 07, 14:57

Originally posted by Rock^Star:
If I'm not wrong, Bao Gong is fiction right?

Was there ever in Chinese history, a magistrate who has a moon on nis forehead?

Lee Hongzhang's most famous disciple is Yuan Shikai? I don't think so. Yuan simply consulted him on some matters.
There really is a person called Bao Zheng, who was famous for being honest, but in official history, that was all he was famous for.

Yuan Shikai was the nephew of one of Li Hongzhang's commander in the Huai Jun. According to the custom then, he was more of a servant or even slave to Li rather than student. To be called a student, other than to receive official teaching, one must attend the imperial exams and will be automatically considered to be a student of the Chief Examiner. Although Li was a Han Lin, he was never apponted a examiner. Yuan was also not appointed as an official via the imperial examination route; so technically, Yuan was not Li's student. But I believe TS's point was that Yuan was from Li's linage of faction, and Yuan later also became Beiyang Da Chen due to Li's recommendation.

Although people today generally hated Yuan for abusing China's republic effort, it should be noted that during late 19th century and early 20th century, he was credited to be the father of Chinese's modern army. A large number of these army later became warlords of China, but a number of them also joined in resisting the Japs during the invasion.
wisefool83
16 Apr 07, 15:08

Just to add on to the Li as "traitor", not sure if wikipedia records this but do take note that Li is the first person within China to warn the Chinese government of the Japanese long before the Sino-Japanese war. But then, nobody took heed and little money was allocated to him for naval funds. Most people regarded him as traitor because he was the one to sign on the Ma Guan Treaty. But the treaty was authorised by the Qing gov and Li couldn't do much then. Considering that Li's punishment by the Qing court after the conclusion of a treaty of such humilating nature, (he was "reprimanded and demoted") one can assume that the Qing gov had accepted responsibility. Compare his punishment with previous diplomats who were often either exiled or even beheaded for signing such treaties.
ndmmxiaomayi
16 Apr 07, 15:53

Li is also known to be a violent person... if I get my history right.
chiabaliao
16 Apr 07, 17:27

Originally posted by wisefool83:
There really is a person called Bao Zheng, who was famous for being honest, but in official history, that was all he was famous for.

Bao Zheng was famous for bringing high officials, including corrupt ministers, to justice.
wisefool83
16 Apr 07, 21:51

In view of other forumees commenting about my post on Bao Zheng and Li Hong Zhang, I have just made a quick trip to the national library and look up on some books and here are my conclusions.

In an earlier post, I had said that Bao Zheng was an inefficient official and I wrote about an incident where his cover was blown. This is incorrect in so far as the official history goes. I can find no written evidence to support my statement and I hereby withdraw the statement and apologise.

However, I mantained my earlier stand with regards to Li Hongzhang and still believes that if the two figures are compared with each other (even though I believe this is not a fair comparison due to various reasons such as political environment and such), Li Hongzhang who was a much more corrupt official than Bao, was also a much more able and contributive official to their people and political masters.

The comparison
On Bao

In the history text pointed out to me by my fellow forumites and other official recorded history, Bao was an uncorruptable official who was famous not only for his honesty but also outstanding performance in his judicial duties. The official records had been very general when mentioning the consequence of his works and so while we know that his work had resulted in positive consequence, the actual impact was unclear. However, due to the restriction of his posts, I believe that Bao's contribution had largely been limited to very small region and locality. His main posts were either regional judicial roles, or regional logistical role. When posted to the capital, he was charged with impeachment responsibility, which although has the power to impeach high ranking officer, had less say on national policy. His only recorded statement for national policy is a statement that advises the Emperor to make military preparation instead of simply making peace with the northern Nomads. Bao was apparently appointed as diplomats on at least one occasion but again, the records did not say much on his actual contribution other than making a smart rebutal statement. At the later stage of his political career, he was promoted to Xue Shi (the closest translation would perhaps be professor) of Tian Zhang Ge and later Long Tu Ge (hence why Bao Zheng is also known as Bao Long Tu). Both institutes ( Tian Zhang Ge and Long Tu Ge) were however, charged with the duties of seeing to the Emperor's literature and educational needs, prestigious but not so powerful positions. His duties then were academic at best and thus is unlikely to have any effect on the people's lives directly.

Despite Bao's outstanding political career however, many of his famous stories such as the beheading of the Emperor's father-in-law "Pang Tai Shi", are fiticious. Bao was indeed famous for impeaching against nobelity and even arresting some of the smaller ones when he was mayor for Kai Feng (a post which he occupied for only a year, and thus unlikely to have as many stories as were believed in the people's culture), but none of the names were recorded and given the political environment then, it was unlikely for Bao to have made such a move without having his own head chopped by the Emperor.

On Li
Li Hongzhang on the other hand, was an extremely corrupt official. Oral history said that bribes to him were sent by the carts. His contribution to his country however, involve reunifying China from a civil war with the Taiping Rebels, modernising China's weaponry, navy, and largely bringing advanced and modern western ideas into China when everyone were still looking down on western ideas. His contributions were much more substantial and tangible compared to Bao.

The whole idea of the comparison was that corrupt, or more accurately, greedy officials are not necessary uncontributive. Just because someone is taking lots of money doesn't mean that he is no good to the country. Li took tons of money, but his contribution is more substantial than the uncorruptable Bao. Bao may not have the Li's chance in that he did not lived in Li's age, but many of Li's colleagues who sees Bao as a model and has indeed followed his footstep to some degrees, were not contributing as much as a fraction of what Li did.

Incidentally, I am currently reading up on another famous corrupt official, He Shen. Interestingly of the 20 crimes that he was charged and found guilty of, none of them stated that he was corrupt. The closest was one that state that "he vie for gains with the ordinary people". It appears that He Shen's actual historical person had been inaccurately passed down as a corrupt good for nothing. In actual history, he was an able finanicial statesmen and was one of the most successful businessmen of his time. His wealth were mostly results of successful business venture rather than bribes. Official records also states that few if any had come forward to accused He Shen for blackmailing or bribery.

It seems like the popular culture had twisted lots of history materials based on the ordinary people's likings. Because we like Bao, we added lots of advantage to him tru operas and novels such as "Qi Xia Wu Yi". His contribution were grossly exagerated to the point of demi-god like. On the other hand, to some people whom we don't like for various reasons, Li for signing humilating treaties and being defeated or He Shen for being very rich. Incidentally the Pang Tai Shi mentioned above was believed to been modelled after Pan Mei, an actual historical figure who was a founding general of the Song Dynasty. He was an able general and did much for his country, but because he was believed by most ordinary people to be a cause for the death of the popular Yang Ye (Grandfather figure of the Yang Generals), he was passed down in pop culture as a corrupt (corruption again, seemingly anyone who is not well-liked is protrayed as corrupt) and abusive royalty.

The point of the whole essay was to point out, as my post in the original threat dealing with the whole government pay raise issue, that just because government are getting paid big bucks, doesn't mean they are corrupted good for nothings. Political realities has some gap with historical fanasty. China would have survive nicely without Bao, but Song Dynasty might not have been founded without Pan Mei and Qing Dynasty might have collapsed much sooner without He Shen or Li Hongzhang.
Skibi
17 Apr 07, 00:10

Originally posted by wisefool83:
In view of other forumees commenting about my post on Bao Zheng and Li Hong Zhang, I have just made a quick trip to the national library and look up on some books and here are my conclusions.

In an earlier post, I had said that Bao Zheng was an inefficient official and I wrote about an incident where his cover was blown. This is incorrect in so far as the official history goes. I can find no written evidence to support my statement and I hereby withdraw the statement and apologise.

However, I mantained my earlier stand with regards to Li Hongzhang and still believes that if the two figures are compared with each other (even though I believe this is not a fair comparison due to various reasons such as political environment and such), Li Hongzhang who was a much more corrupt official than Bao, was also a much more able and contributive official to their people and political masters.

The comparison
On Bao

In the history text pointed out to me by my fellow forumites and other official recorded history, Bao was an uncorruptable official who was famous not only for his honesty but also outstanding performance in his judicial duties. The official records had been very general when mentioning the consequence of his works and so while we know that his work had resulted in positive consequence, the actual impact was unclear. However, due to the restriction of his posts, I believe that Bao's contribution had largely been limited to very small region and locality. His main posts were either regional judicial roles, or regional logistical role. When posted to the capital, he was charged with impeachment responsibility, which although has the power to impeach high ranking officer, had less say on national policy. His only recorded statement for national policy is a statement that advises the Emperor to make military preparation instead of simply making peace with the northern Nomads. Bao was apparently appointed as diplomats on at least one occasion but again, the records did not say much on his actual contribution other than making a smart rebutal statement. At the later stage of his political career, he was promoted to Xue Shi (the closest translation would perhaps be professor) of Tian Zhang Ge and later Long Tu Ge (hence why Bao Zheng is also known as Bao Long Tu). Both institutes ( Tian Zhang Ge and Long Tu Ge) were however, charged with the duties of seeing to the Emperor's literature and educational needs, prestigious but not so powerful positions. His duties then were academic at best and thus is unlikely to have any effect on the people's lives directly.

Despite Bao's outstanding political career however, many of his famous stories such as the beheading of the Emperor's father-in-law "Pang Tai Shi", are fiticious. Bao was indeed famous for impeaching against nobelity and even arresting some of the smaller ones when he was mayor for Kai Feng (a post which he occupied for only a year, and thus unlikely to have as many stories as were believed in the people's culture), but none of the names were recorded and given the political environment then, it was unlikely for Bao to have made such a move without having his own head chopped by the Emperor.

On Li
Li Hongzhang on the other hand, was an extremely corrupt official. Oral history said that bribes to him were sent by the carts. His contribution to his country however, involve reunifying China from a civil war with the Taiping Rebels, modernising China's weaponry, navy, and largely bringing advanced and modern western ideas into China when everyone were still looking down on western ideas. His contributions were much more substantial and tangible compared to Bao.

The whole idea of the comparison was that corrupt, or more accurately, greedy officials are not necessary uncontributive. Just because someone is taking lots of money doesn't mean that he is no good to the country. Li took tons of money, but his contribution is more substantial than the uncorruptable Bao. Bao may not have the Li's chance in that he did not lived in Li's age, but many of Li's colleagues who sees Bao as a model and has indeed followed his footstep to some degrees, were not contributing as much as a fraction of what Li did.

Incidentally, I am currently reading up on another famous corrupt official, He Shen. Interestingly of the 20 crimes that he was charged and found guilty of, none of them stated that he was corrupt. The closest was one that state that "he vie for gains with the ordinary people". It appears that He Shen's actual historical person had been inaccurately passed down as a corrupt good for nothing. In actual history, he was an able finanicial statesmen and was one of the most successful businessmen of his time. His wealth were mostly results of successful business venture rather than bribes. Official records also states that few if any had come forward to accused He Shen for blackmailing or bribery.

It seems like the popular culture had twisted lots of history materials based on the ordinary people's likings. Because we like Bao, we added lots of advantage to him tru operas and novels such as "Qi Xia Wu Yi". His contribution were grossly exagerated to the point of demi-god like. On the other hand, to some people whom we don't like for various reasons, Li for signing humilating treaties and being defeated or He Shen for being very rich. Incidentally the Pang Tai Shi mentioned above was believed to been modelled after Pan Mei, an actual historical figure who was a founding general of the Song Dynasty. He was an able general and did much for his country, but because he was believed by most ordinary people to be a cause for the death of the popular Yang Ye (Grandfather figure of the Yang Generals), he was passed down in pop culture as a corrupt (corruption again, seemingly anyone who is not well-liked is protrayed as corrupt) and abusive royalty.

The point of the whole essay was to point out, as my post in the original threat dealing with the whole government pay raise issue, that just because government are getting paid big bucks, doesn't mean they are corrupted good for nothings. Political realities has some gap with historical fanasty. China would have survive nicely without Bao, but Song Dynasty might not have been founded without Pan Mei and Qing Dynasty might have collapsed much sooner without He Shen or Li Hongzhang.
Since it is not a fair comparison, why not compare Li with Dr Sun Yat-sen or Mr George Washington?

Li did what he did to save his own skin. i.e to preserve the golden goose and get more ill-gotten gains. However in the end his corruption spread to his subordinates and eventually much of the administration, thus sowing the seeds for the downfall of the Qing Dynasty. The huge amount of ill-gotten money that Li and his cronies siphoned off for their personal use could have been used to upgrade the industry, the civil/administrative/education systems and the country's military far more than what Li has done in history. Perhaps Qing China could have been a super power on par with USA before WWII if not for Li's corruption?
SingaporeTyrannosaur
17 Apr 07, 01:56

I think somebody has got to be pretty nutty to argue that selfishness or corrupted people ultimately has what it takes to work for the good of the people they serve.

Ultimately, when all is well it is well and everyone gets along... but the moment things take a downturn, there is no question what the selfish and corrupt will do, and can do if they are given the means.

I'll take the honest judge anytime, the evil may prosper now but their ruin for themselves and others is almost always assured.
Slipshade
17 Apr 07, 08:47

Originally posted by chiabaliao:
Bao Zheng was famous for bringing high officials, including corrupt ministers, to justice.
I'm not sure about that in actual history... but in tv drama serials, yes.
Rock^Star
17 Apr 07, 09:56

Originally posted by wisefool83:
There really is a person called Bao Zheng, who was famous for being honest, but in official history, that was all he was famous for.

Can u explain the moon on his forehead? Natural or he put it there.
Texcoco II
17 Apr 07, 10:24

Originally posted by Slipshade:
I'm not sure about that in actual history... but in tv drama serials, yes.
In actual history yes, he caught and charges corrupted government officials and powerful members of the imperial family and tat's why he is famous among chinese for his fairness in justice
chiabaliao
17 Apr 07, 10:25

Originally posted by Slipshade:
I'm not sure about that in actual history... but in tv drama serials, yes.
Definitely in actual history.
wisefool83
17 Apr 07, 23:35

Originally posted by Skibi:
Since it is not a fair comparison, why not compare Li with Dr Sun Yat-sen or Mr George Washington?

Li did what he did to save his own skin. i.e to preserve the golden goose and get more ill-gotten gains. However in the end his corruption spread to his subordinates and eventually much of the administration, thus sowing the seeds for the downfall of the Qing Dynasty. The huge amount of ill-gotten money that Li and his cronies siphoned off for their personal use could have been used to upgrade the industry, the civil/administrative/education systems and the country's military far more than what Li has done in history. Perhaps Qing China could have been a super power on par with USA before WWII if not for Li's corruption?
Compare Li with Sun Wen? Sure, in fact that would actually be a very appropriate comparison.

As we all know, Dr Sun is "the National Father of China". He was credited with bringing about the modern China through many attempts of revolution and finally tru Xin Hai Revolution. So instinctively most people would think that Sun would have made a much greater contribution to China than Li.

Personally, I think that Sun Wen is a great person, possessing great virtues. He selflessly commits himself into a political ideology, great preseverance and when things succeeded, he steps down without any greed for wealth or power. However, I have much greater doubts on his capabilities as a politician and his actual contribution.

1) Sun was not the first to raise democratic ideas in China, but he choosed a revolutionary route. In terms of politics, I believe in conservative, meaning, I would rather avoid taking high risk steps if possible. Sun's vision was a French Revolutionary style of reform, which although brings about great changes to China, also brings high risks. In fact, right after the Xin Hai revolution, China was thrown into turmoil, sure people can blame the Beiyang warlords for it, but Sun must also share some of the responsibility as it was he who made the call to pass the hot seat to Yuan and even giving up the election later. On a personal level, it may be a very gracious act, but on a political level, it was a very bad call.

2) Even if one argues in favour of the Xin Hai revolution, I would argue that Sun is hardly the one responsible for it. Why? Although Sun spent most his time calling and gathering funds for the revolutions, most of the funds were wasted on poorly planned attempts. When the revolution succeeded, it succeeded mainly due to an accident. Yes, Xin Hai revolution was an accident, it was not planned by Sun. Most of the people who participated in the revolution were elites groomed indirectly by Zhang Zhidong. The person who later took charged of the fighting was Huang Xin. The person who drafted the constitution was Song Jiaoren. Both Huang and Song were on parred with Sun in terms on reputation. Most, including me, would agree that Sun made the most effort in bringing the good for China, but in terms of result, I would say that Huang, Song, and even Zhang Zhidong and Li Hongzhang had more to offer than Sun.

Sun brought ideas, but these ideas were there before Sun promoted them, it's just to different degrees and the means of achieving them. Li focus on bringing in specific changes such as industrialisation, weaponry build up, implementing overseas education and such. Sun, because of his ideals and gracious personality, missed a lot of chances to implement and to produce greater results than many of his peers. As such, if compared to Li, I would think that China would actually be worsed off without Li than without Sun.

(Note: this is a very general reply, if you wished for a really detailed one, then I will have to hit the books for days before I can come up with anything decent)
wisefool83
17 Apr 07, 23:57

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think somebody has got to be pretty nutty to argue that selfishness or corrupted people ultimately has what it takes to work for the good of the people they serve.

Ultimately, when all is well it is well and everyone gets along... but the moment things take a downturn, there is no question what the selfish and corrupt will do, and can do if they are given the means.

I'll take the honest judge anytime, the evil may prosper now but their ruin for themselves and others is almost always assured.
Yup, I am arguing that a bad person can be more contributive to his country than a good person; and I'm not nutty. I'm trying to put this as smoothly as possible in English. What I'm arguing is the traditional Chinese concept of Virtue (de) and Ability (Neng). Ideally, you would want to find someone with both virtue and ability, but hey, we are living in the real world, so most of the time we have to compromise on something. Instinctively, we would say to go with virtue, afterall, if someone lacks ability but has virtue, then the worse thing would be to be able to do less good than to have great ability and no virtue which will cause great evil right?

However, my belief is that we would rather compromise a bit on the virtue than to compromise on ability, because scenarios of doing bad things iwht good intention happens lots of time. And in terms of politics, making the right political call may be very different from making an ethical call.

Second thing I'm arguing with my previous posts are that we as the ordinary people tend to polarise history very often. We either Angelicise the good or demonised the not so good. Bao was a good official, but his contributions are limited by his positions, this is not his fault, but it doesn't mean we should decorate his life with so much mythical stories that he becomes a demi-god. It's not so bad if most of us can differentiate between myths, moral fables and plain reality, but Chinese has a bad habit of enforcing myths on reality. We just keep hoping our leaders will be like San Huang Wu Di, Yao Shun Yu Tang and blar blar blar. Or our officials to be like Bao Gong, Hai Rui and such, and worse, not refering to the historical figures but the legendary ones.

On the other hand, for people we don't like that much for various reasons, such as Pan Mei, He Shen and Li Hongzhang, we demonised them to such extent that most if not all of their contributions had been wiped off and they were kept in people's memory only as negative examples.

My call is to ask us to snap ourselves from these myths and see history not in a black and white world. Good people can do bad things. Take Wang Anshi, Sima Guang and Su Dongpo, all very good people, but when added together, they created hell of a havoc for the Song Dynasty. Bad people can also do lots of good things. He Shen who got rich tru shrew and sometimes unethical business practices, were responsible for Qian Long's finances for a long time and it was his clever fianance management that allowed the Emperor to conduct his major campaigns without over taxing on his people.

Many godlike good people had very bad sides too, but they were often overlooked or conveniently left out of history text to protect their good images for propaganda purposes. Hai Rui, whom was often compared to Bao Gong, was an extremely cruel man to his wifes. He would often beat and divorce them. Zhang Zhidong, supposingly the Qing Liu leader, role model of morality, killed his first wife by throwing a Chinese ink pad (those heavy ones made of stone) at her hitting her right on the head after the wife tried to talk him out of alcoholic habits. Deng Shichang who bravely sacrificed himself during the Sino-Jap war was often protrayed as the under-ultised able naval commander and blames were on Li Hongzhang for not promoting him to higher ranks, conveniently left out was the fact that as a commander trainee, Deng had grounded his ship on coral reefs. Given such cirumstance, who would want to promote him?

People, you are welcome to exchange pointers with me on historical subject (preferably Chinese history) and their application on modern politics, but please take the myths out of them. Bao Gong don't come with a cresent moon on the head.
YaoRockets
18 Apr 07, 10:19

Let me tell a little story of China's later paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.

Back in 1982, British "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher went to Beijing to negotiate with Deng about Hong Kong's future. Since Thatcher just won a war over Falkland Islands with the Argentinians, she was confident UK could keep Hong Kong beyond 1997.

Deng didn't mince words:"PRC is no Qing dynasty, I am no Li Hong Zhang".

Anyone who implies there is "debate" or "discussion" in China about Li Hong Zhang's place in history, he's just ignorant.
wisefool83
18 Apr 07, 10:46

Originally posted by YaoRockets:
Let me tell a little story of China's later paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.

Back in 1982, British "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher went to Beijing to negotiate with Deng about Hong Kong's future. Since Thatcher just won a war over Falkland Islands with the Argentinians, she was confident UK could keep Hong Kong beyond 1997.

Deng didn't mince words:"PRC is no Qing dynasty, I am no Li Hong Zhang".

Anyone who implies there is "debate" or "discussion" in China about Li Hong Zhang's place in history, he's just ignorant.
What makes you think Deng Xiaoping couldn't be wrong? Chinese leaders are famed for being scholars, but they don't really spend a lot of time digging into history books. On of the more recent Chinese Drama (Zou Xiang Gong He, think it's showing in Sg now), featured a more favourable Li Hongzhang than most people knew, obviously the Chinese Leaders, Hu Jindao wasn't too happy about it and wanted to ban the show. The producers of the shows then brought in the top historians of China and showed Hu the historical evidence. Hu relented and allowed the show to be airred but still insist on cutting on some scenes that he couldn't accept. The debate is still going on at the moment but not heated up cause the Chinese had moved on from Qing history to other dynasty. But yes, there are still debates on Li Hongzhang, and we are not ignorant, and if I may add one last point, the first person who started this debate was non other than his political opponent, the late Chinese scholar Liang Qichao.
chiabaliao
21 Apr 07, 21:34

An exhibition on overseas Chinese identity is currently on at the NTU Chinese Heritage Centre.

http://www.chineseheritagecentre.org/