Insurgency and Social Disorder in Guizhou: The "Miao" Rebellion, 1854-1873 (review)

Reviews 443 Robert D. Jenks. Insurgency and Social Disorder in Guizhou: The "Miao" Rebellion, 1854-1873. Honolulu: University ofHawai'i Press, 1994. xi, 227 pp. Hardcover $41.00, isbn 0-8248-1589-0. The Qing dynasty's ability to survive the rebellions of the mid-nineteenth century was one ofthe most remarkable feats in Chinese history. Not surprisingly, Chinese scholars have produced numerous volumes on these uprisings, and there are also English-language works on all the major rebellions, including the Taiping, the Nian, and the Muslim uprisings in the southwest and northwest. Until now the so-called "Miao" Rebellion (1854-1873) in Guizhou has only merited passing references in most Western-language histories ofthe period. Providing the first detailed description of this important event in English, Robert Jenks' work on two decades ofsocial disorder in Guizhou fills a serious lacuna in our understanding ofthe social conflict that rocked the Qing dynasty during the mid-nineteenth century. Ifnothing else, Jenks corrects the long-standing misconception that the participants in this insurgency were predominantly Miao and that this rebellion was primarily the result of ethnic tensions between Han Chinese migrants and the indigenous Miao. In fact, the Miao were only one element in the rebellion, which Jenks describes as a "congeries of different revolts involving other ethnic minorities . . . and disgruntled Han Chinese" (p. 3). Having determined that the "Miao" Rebellion was a congeries of different revolts , Jenks uncovers the complexity of social conflict in Guizhou. This in turn leads him to search for causes and common denominators among these various revolts. By attempting to examine, in a volume ofroughly two hundred pages, the influence of ecology, ethnicity, governmental control, and millenarian religion as well as provide a narrative ofthe various insurrections that occurred in different regions of Guizhou over a period of two decades, Jenks sets himself a Herculean task. Unfortunately, the ensuing search is long on breadth and short on depth. Consider the treatment ofethnicity. Although Jenks immediately and correctly dismisses the misnomer "Miao" Rebellion, he still rehashes written comments of Chinese officials or scholars to illustrate Han Chinese contempt and hostility toward the Miao. Such prejudices undoubtedly existed, but how prevalent were they and how did they influence official reactions to the uprisings? Rehashing historical Chinese bigotry, especially in the context of the Qing dynasty, raises some intriguing questions. Jenks never contemplates the irony of Chinese© 1996 by University officials employing these shopworn ethnic labels toward the Miao while the Han ofHawai'i PressChinese themselves served another ethnic minority, the Manchus. Whether at the elite or popular level, ethnic relations in Qing China were exceedingly complex. More apropos to his work Jenks never examines how Han Chinese attitudes to- 444 China Review International: Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1996 ward the Miao actually influenced the development of the rebellion. As Jenks' own narrative of these insurgencies reveals, rebels of different ethnic groups displayed a "remarkable" degree of cooperation (p. 6). How were they able to overcome their ethnic differences and work together? The question is never addressed. In his search for common denominators to explain the series of outbreaks that comprised the "Miao" Rebellion, Jenks raises many interesting issues but these issues are never fully integrated into the narrative of the rebellion. For example , the evidence of cooperation among insurgents ofvarious ethnic groups suggests that class might have been an important factor in understanding rebel solidarity. It would appear that poor Chinese and Miao, who suffered alike under the harsh conditions in Guizhou, could overcome ethnic hostility and find common cause in opposing an unjust government. Similarly, Jenks takes note that popular religions and millenarian beliefs historically provided cohesion to many peasant rebellions. Searching for this element in Guizhou, the author duly notes the religious practices of some rebel groups, but precisely how religion was related to the outbreak, development, or defeat of the rebellion is never explored. In the end, Jenks is far more successful as a historian recounting a complex episode of social unrest than he is as an anthropologist or sociologist. Despite its analytical shortcomings, Jenks' work stands alone as the only English -language treatment of the subject. The author does provide us with a great...