The Red Spears, 1916-1949

The University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies No. 54 The Red Spears, 1916-1949 by Tai Hsuan-chih translated by Ronald Suleski introduction by Elizabeth Perry Ann Arbor Center for Chinese Studies The University of Michigan 1985 Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/ Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program. ©1985 by Center for Chinese Studies The University of Michigan Printed in the United States Cover design by Eric Ernst ISBN 978-0-89264-060-7 (hardcover) ISBN 978-0-89264-059-1 (paper) ISBN 978-0-472-12791-7 (ebook) ISBN 978-0-472-90187-6 (open access) The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Contents The Red Spears Reconsidered: An Introduction, by Elizabeth Perry vii Translator's Introduction, by Ronald Suleski xxiii Preface, by T'ao Hsi-sheng xxix Chapter I: Origins of the Red Spears 1 Chapter II: Modern China and the Red Spears 13 Chapter III: Organization and Beliefs 31 Chapter IV: Ceremonies and Ritual Practices 41 Chapter V: Offshoots of the Red Spears 59 Chapter VI: Transformation of the Red Spears 87 Chapter VII: Accomplishments of the Red Spears 103 Chapter VIII: Conclusion 115 Notes 119 Glossary 137 The Red Spears Reconsidered: An Introduction Elizabeth J. Perry Before Tai Hslian-chih wrote his book on the Red Spear Society more than a decade ago, the subject of his study was a little understood movement that seemed of onfy passing interest to scholars of China—intriguing for its peculiar beliefs and rituals, perhaps, but hardly of central importance to modern Chinese history. Today, however, thanks in no small measure to the pioneering work of Professor Tai, the Red Spears have gained a secure niche in scholarship on modern China. Their numbers (reaching perhaps some three million participants at the height of the movement) and endurance (lasting intermittently for several decades) should stand as reason enough for the recent scholarly attention. But the Red Spears have generated interest for other reasons as well. As research into the history both of China's traditional rural rebellions and of her Communist revolution has developed over the past few years, the Red Spears have assumed increasing significance. A movement which bore marked similarities to earlier Chinese uprisings (most notably the Boxers), the Red Spears nevertheless operated in a later period of history (right through the middle of the twentieth century) which brought them in direct contact with Communist revolutionaries. An analysis of the Red Spears thus becomes important both for what it can tell us about longstanding patterns of rural rebellion in China, and for what it suggests about the nature of the Chinese revolution. As the importance of the Red Spears has gained recognition, scholarly controversy over how to interpret the movement has also grown. The areas of dispute concern three basic aspects of the Red Spear Society: (1) origins, (2) social composition, and (3) relationship to revolution. On the first issue, there is disagreement over when and where the movement got underway. Although such matters may seem of only arcane interest, in fact they are closely connected to larger questions about the Red Spears' place in the tradition of Vll viii The Red Spears Reconsidered Chinese popular protest: How was the Red Spear Society related to earlier secret society or sectarian groups, such as the White Lotus Society? Were the Red Spears descendants of the Boxers? The second issue concerns the nature of Red Spear members and leaders: Were these freeholding peasants, tenants, rich peasants, and/or landlords? In whose interests did the movement fight? Was it principally a class or community-based operation? Was it "conservative" or "progressive?" The third issue centers on the relationship between the Red Spear Society and the Chinese Communist revolution: Did the Red Spears facilitate or obstruct the course of the revolution? Tai Hsiian-chih offers stimulating hypotheses on each of these three basic areas of dispute, thereby setting the framework for much of the scholarly debate which has ensued over the past decade and a half. On the question of origins, Professor Tai— who is also the author of a major study of the Boxer uprising—situates the Red Spears squarely in the Boxer tradition.1 Tai sees the later movement as a "transformation" [yen-pien] of the Boxers, a process which he depicts by the metaphor of dead embers bursting into flame [ssu-hui fu-jan]. The assumption of continuity between Boxers and Red Spears is certainly a plausible one, particularly in light of the geographical proximity and similarities in ritualistic activities of the two movements. Moreover, the fact that many Red Spear leaders are known to have hailed originally from western Shantung—the region where the Boxers first got underway—lends further credibility to the continuity hypothesis. Still, the assumption of precise links between the two uprisings remains to be demonstrated. Professor Tai suggests that the Red Spears originated in the same counties of Shantung where the Boxers had first been active, only fifteen years after the earlier movement had been suppressed. However, inasmuch as a number of sources suggest different dates and places of birth for the movement, we are advised to exercise some caution in drawing the Boxer-Red Spear link.2 But Tai Hsiian-chih argues for more than geographical or temporal connections; he also contends that the two movements shared a common organizational ancestor: the local militia. Here Tai is extending the line of argument advanced in his earlier book on the Boxers —an argument which holds that the village militia, rather than the sectarian White Lotus Society, was the institutional foundation of the movement. In his earlier study, Professor Tai attempts to establish that the Boxers were an outgrowth of local defense forces [hsiang-t'uari] whose aim was to provide protection against rampant banditry. As Elizabeth Perry ix part of the "orthodox" militia establishment, the Boxers were antagonistic to sectarian groups such as the White Lotus. Tai is certainly correct in asserting that the Boxers were not identical to White Lotus sectarians (or to allegedly White Lotus-affiliated groups such as the I-ho-ch'iian of the late eighteenth century); we know, for example, that Boxers did not worship the central deities of the White Lotus faith—just as White Lotus adherents paid no special homage to the heroes of Chinese fiction toward whom a good deal of Boxer ritualistic behavior was directed. Nevertheless, recent research by Susan Naquin shows that Professor Tai is mistaken in characterizing the White Lotus as a unified organization whose local branches "responded in unison to central commands." Furthermore, he errs in arguing that the invulnerability cult (which was a cornerstone of both Boxer and Red Spear ritual) was entirely foreign to the White Lotus tradition. Instead, it seems clear that methods of fighting intended to induce invulnerability (such as the "Armor of the Golden Bell") were well known among White Lotus believers.3 During the White Lotus-inspired Wang Lun uprising of 1774 which occurred in western Shantung (home of both Boxers and Red Spears in later centuries), the rebels used magical charms to try to ensure invulnerability against government armaments. They chanted "guns will not fire," while women believers waved white fans in an appar- ent attempt to ward off enemy bullets.4 Since similar practices reappeared in the Boxer and Red Spear movements, the earlier precedents are of considerable interest. Professor Tai is no doubt correct in pointing out that an important foundation of early Boxer strength lay in the institution of the local militia, but as Philip Ruhn has noted, the fact that a group called itself a local militia is not proof of its orthodox, anti-sectarian character,5 All of this is not to argue that either the Boxers or Red Spears were simply offshoots of the White Lotus; in fact mounting evidence suggests that both groups were often quite hostile to White Lotus members. Yet despite expressions of animosity against individual sectarians, it is clear that Boxers and Red Spears did draw inspiration from elements of the "heterodox" tradition. Indeed this question of the precise relationship of the Red Spears to the "Little Tradition" of rural China is a subject which has elicited increasing attention from scholars in recent years (as I will discuss below). If the origins of the Red Spears are still obscure, the social composition of the movement is somewhat better understood. Professor Tai has made a major contribution by correctly identifying the bulk of Red Spear leaders as drawn from the ranks of rich peasants, landlords x The Red Spears Reconsidered and gentry. This important fact helps, I believe, to explain some of the ways in which the Red Spears departed from earlier sectarian groups in North China. As Tai notes, for example, women were excluded from Red Spear activities. Women were not permitted to attend ritual ceremonies and were even forbidden to make the protective stomach bands worn by Red Spears in battle; female meddling, the Red Spears believed, would vitiate their magical invulnerability. This absence of women is in striking contrast to the major role which women had played in many White Lotus sects. The exclusion may well reflect the Confucian mentality of Red Spear leaders, drawn as they were from the rural elite. References in Red Spear regulations to such Confucian values as filial piety lend further support to this hypothesis.6 As Professor Tai makes clear, early Red Spear operations were directed primarily against bandits.

Load more