[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hakka-Cantonese conflict in GuangDong, Taiwan, and Malaya in 19th century



hanculturalist@hotmail.com wrote:

> In article <665ic4$3c7$1@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>   jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
> >
> > Donald Tucker (bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> >
> > : > I believe that is a misquote. Spain and Portugal were not included.
> > : > Brazil and a few places in Spanish South America were.
> >
> > : The quote is as reported in Peter Lowe, _Britain in the Far East:
> > : A Survey from 1819 to the Present_, (London: Longman, 1981) page 34.
> > : do you have a source that report it differently?
> >
> > Think so but it will take me a while to dig around for it.
> >
> > : > But it was not in the mood to annex and rule either.
> >
> > : Agree.  For this reason Plamerston and later Disraeli had to
> > : conduct their imperialist designs on a shoestring budget.
> > : In the case of Disraeli he had to go so far as acting on his
> > : own to get a piece of the Suez Canal project.
> >
> > I'm not sure Disraeli wanted the British *government* to own a
> > slice of the Suez Canal unless it had to anyway.
> >
> > : Applying this principle to the AH we would see the Palmerston's
> > : response to Gordon's death to the Taiping as being the creation
> > : of a budget priced replacement, consisting largely of Sepoy's
> > : from India.
> >
> > Who presumably wouldn't be thrilled about serving so far from
> > home so soon after the Mutiny caused in part by rumours of
> > service in Burma and Africa....
> >
> > : They would arrive in China too late to stop the
> > : Taiping from gaining control of the government.
> >
> > Which I still see as more or less impossible.
> >
> > : So they would
> > : be used merely to keep order in areas near the British trading
> > : areas.
> >
> > But the British, with or without Indian troops, could not really
> > expect to keep the massive Armies of the time out if they really
> > wanted to enter the Treaty Ports. It was diplomacy that helped
> > them in our time line.
> >
> > : As the provinces degenerated into warlordism the British
> >
> > Assuming it does. Which I reject out of hand.
> >
> > : administrators would judiciously apply force and bribes to assist
> > : in cutting deals with the warlords in regions where British trade
> > : and industry was affected.
> >
> > In our timeline no warlord could afford to do a deal with any
> > foreign power except the USSR. Even then things were pretty
> > hands off. Of course some of them did accept some aid from a
> > few of the Western powers, but it isn't likely that any of
> > them at any time could aford to cut deals with the British.
> >
> > : The grdual expansion of British direct and indirect control
> > : by Palmerston, Disraeli and others would be very much on the
> > : pattern of Clive's self directed expansion in Bengal over
> > : a century earlier, rather than a war of direct conquest.
> >
> > And yet that pattern does not apply to China and was very very
> > expensive to do. The Chinese are unlikely to accept any sort of
> > deal, the British are not likely to find any allies in China
> > itself. China is not a fractured society like India.
> >
> > : By the mid 1870's most of the Yangze valley would be under
> > : direct or indirect British control. They would similarly
> > : expand from Hong Kong, but would come into conflict with
> > : the French who were expanding from Indo-China.
> >
> > The French were not in control of Indochina yet. Nor do I accept
> > that such control was possible let alone likely.
> >
> > : > What warlords?
> >
> > : The ones who will arise from discontented members of
> > : provincial administrations and Chinese military who
> > : do not want to be subjected to rule by an emperor
> > : who is attempting to mould them into a bizzare system of
> > : beliefs and actions, and who has no credibility in terms
> > : of Chinese belief systems, whether Confucionist, Buddhist
> > : of Daoist.
> >
> > And so they will accept being subjected to rule by a foreign
> > Empress who is attempting to mold them into a bizarre system
> > of beliefs and actions and who has no credibility in terms of
> > Chinese belief systems? I don't think so myself.
> >
> > : > And you are still missing the basic point which is
> > : > that it was not Gordon who beat the Taiping Armies. It was Zeng,
> > : > the Hunan Army, indigenous Chinese people to a man. So if the
> > : > Taipings win they have to first beat the Hunan Army. Then if
> > : > anyone takes power it will be Zeng and his friends. They are not
> > : > likely to divide up China.
> >
> > : Of course it was Zeng who did almost all of the fighting that
> > : defeated the Taiping. The POD for this AH is that *he* fails
> > : to defeat the Taiping. He an his friends would be dead as
> > : headless doornails after the Taiping victory.
> >
> > So he fails to defeat them. Someone else does. Zuo or Li. It
> > isn't as if there were no other options going. Nor have I seen
> > any reason to explain why the Hunan and Huai Armies fail. It
> > is just assumed they do and none of the other militias rise to
> > take their place. This I do not see. The local gentry were not
> > going to lose their place in society and destroy their belief
> > system for no good reason. This means resistence to the Taiping
> > until the end. As the peasants tended to side with them that
> > also means sizable loyalist Armies.
> >
> > : The warlords would arise from the the second rate administrators
> > : and generals who remain in the provinces.
> >
> > It took years before the Warlords had a proper civil structure that
> > they needed. It took the shock of the Taiping War and then years
> > more of development. I just don't see this at all. Even assuming
> > the Taipings managed to take Beijing. Which would need some pretty
> > hefty what-ifs.
> >
> > : The discussion of General "Chinese" Gordon and other Westerners
> > : is to show how Britain and others would be drawn into the increasing
> > : chaos of Taiping China after the Taiping kill Gordon in 1859.
> >
> > I don't see why they would be drawn in either. Gordon wasn't
> > there on official business. The cost would have been huge and
> > the gains marginal.
> >
> > : > If any such warlords existed or more to the point if they would
> > : > be willing to deal with the British. Something particularly not
> > : > true of the Cantonese who had long first hand experience of the
> > : > British and did not like what they saw one bit. The Qing had to
> > : > use force to *stop* the Cantonese fighting the British by them-
> > : > selves.
> >
> > : IN this AH the Taiping have killed the Qing governors, except for
> > : those who have fled.  As a result there is disorder in areas
> > : such as  Guangzhou (Canton).
> >
> > Which would mean any British person stepping ashore did so at
> > some considerable risk to his own life. I see massive local
> > militia groups forming to keep the British out. The peaceful
> > Cantonese population, with Qing governors killing anyone who
> > made a fuss, was enough to drive British trade to Shanghai.
> > Think what they would do if they were let off the leash.
> >
> > :  This is where the British have no choice but
> > : to use their Sepoy troops and gunboats.
> >
> > Why? And to what end? They would have to fight fairly well armed
> > and very angry Cantonese people from one end of the province to
> > the other. The chances of doing so successfully are minimal. The
> > British won so much because the Manchus compromised rather than
> > risk arming the Han population. With then gone expect mass Han
> > armies. The Han officials always opposed any compromise. Compare
> > the record of the Qing in Inner Asia where they were NOT prepared
> > to compromise. No significant losses until 1860 and no losses
> > through military defeats.
> >
> > : 1860's rather than in the 1990's. In real history there was a
> > : major Hakka-Cantonese war in 1855-7. In this AH the war still
> > : occurs (its before the POD) and is a recent memory at the time
> > : of British restoration of order after the province breaks away
> > : from the AH Taiping empire in about 1862.
> >
> > There was massive sub-ethnic feuding in Taiwan too, but that
> > doesn't mean the now theoretical distinctions between BSR
> > were differences between "real" Chinese people and others.
> > There was fighting between the Punti and Hakka populations,
> > but I wouldn't call it a war by any means.
>
> They fought in Malaya too, Hakka was lead by Yap Ah Loi.
>
> ùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù
>                                                            ¡ü
> °¨¨Ó¦è¨È¨Óªº¤jº~¥D¸qªÌ                                     ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
>    »¯¨½¬R                                                  ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> §Úªººõ­¶--                                                 ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> Han Culturalist from Malaysia                              ¡ü
> Chiew Lee Yih                                              ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> visit my home page at:                                     ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
>    http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hanculturalist              ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
>    * §Ú¤ä«ù¦èÂÿW¥ß¡A¦ý°í¨M¤Ï¹ï»O¿W¡I¡I                    ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan,        ¡ü
> why? visit:                                                ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> ­ì¦]¡H  ¨ì http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html ¡ü
> ¥h¬Ý¬Ý´Nª¾¹D¤F¡C                                           ¡ü
>                                                            ¡ü
> ùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù
>
> >
> > : > In which case they will lose. The Japanese could not hold onto
> > : > the areas trade was important, why would the British and French?
> >
> > : They will win for the same reason that they won in 1841-42 (before
> >
> > The Qing compromised rather than fight it out you mean?
> >
> > : the POD) and in real history's post POD occupation of Beijing in
> > : 1860, despite the existence of a central government, the Qing,
> > : that was better established than the Taiping would be in this AH.
> >
> > I have yet to see what those reasons are. The Qing could have
> > won if it was prepared to fight in 1842. The British forces
> > were too small and all the Chinese officials wanted to fight
> > on. The Manchus decided the British were less dangerous than
> > the prospect of armed Chinese Armies.
> >
> > : In the 1860's the Japanese are still sealed from the world in
> > : Japan, so they had no areas to hold onto in China. In
> >
> > True.
> >
> > : real history the Japanese do not come out of their shell until
> > : 1874, when they send an expedition to occupy Taiwan (Formosa).
> >
> > Which rules Japan out.
> >
> > : They withdrawn the expedition in return for indemnity but noted the
> > : incredible weakness of the Chinese military.
> >
> > The Chinese Army on Taiwan being rotated from Fujian and was
> > only there to maintain law and order. It was a policing unit,
> > no banner men only Green Standard troops. Of course it was
> > weak. Unprepared too.
> >
> > : (The Japanese
> > : returned to Taiwan in 1895 and did not withdraw until 1945) In
> >
> > Well they were sort of forced out in 1945.
> >
> > : this AH we can expect the Japanese to make a similar move to occupy
> > : Taiwan in the 1870's.
> >
> > Which, if a Chinese Han government is in power, will fail in the
> > long run. If they build up a Navy before the Chinese they might
> > keep it for a while.
> >
> > :  But by then the AH Taiping government,
> > : unlike the the Qing of real history, would have no control in
> > : Taiwan. The Japanese would not withdraw after their occupation.
> >
> > Assuming that there is a Taiping government.
> >
> > : > Assuming it comes to power in the first place. Which it didn't
> > : > and I think couldn't. Why they would I don't know. Anyone come
> > : > up with a serious reason why they would win?
> >
> > : But the seizure of power by the taiping is the key assumption of
> > : this AH.  It is the POD for our discussion of colonial China.
> >
> > Then it is a silly POD.
> >
> > : In real history the provinces ceded in 1862 were in the
> > : Cochin-China (approximately Vietnam) region.
> >
> > Approximately south Vietnam you mean?
> >
> > : In real history the Qing suppressed rebellions in Yunnan (Muslims
> > : from 1855-73) and Guizhou (Maio tribes 1854-72). In this AH the
> > : Qing administration is destroyed by the Taiping and the Taiping
> > : soon loose control in these regions.  The French step in to restore
> > : order.
> >
> > I wish the French good luck. They aren't likely to be successful.
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> > --
> >
> >   Asking the Ignorant to use the Incomprehensible to decide the Unknowable
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>       http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


--
«È®aÂø»x
http://www.shwotower.com.tw/~limkl/hakkamag.html
«È»y½u¤W±Ð¾Ç
http://www.shwotower.com.tw/~limkl/hakka.html
ºô¸ô¼s¼½¹q¥x
http://www.shwotower.com.tw/~limkl/radio.html