Banditry in China

I've been reading a book about banditry in China from the late 18th into the mid 19th century (the mid-Qing or late Imperial period, in terms of traditional Chinese periodization).

These are simply among my notes from the reading. Notes that did NOT get into the actual review that I have prepared for publication months hence in The Federal Lawyer.

"Bandit" is not a legal term in English, it is a vernacular term that derives from the word for "banishment." It is associated with activities that might get their perpetrator banished, and with activities sometimes associated with those who HAVE BEEN banished, and who accordingly can only continue their criminal ways on the margins of a settled society, where there are hiding places or a nearby sanctuary.

The word most often translated into "bandit" from Chinese is "fei," which has a similar etymology.

Also, both "bandit" and "fei" suggest violent theft, as well as membership in a gang.

Another useful Chinese word to know in context is "zei." This suggests 'one who pillages.' It is a broader term than "fei" because the pillaging committed by a zei can be part of a political revolt, as well as or instead of banditry.

The book, UNRULY PEOPLE, is about bandits, but also in parts it is about the boundary where banditry can turn into rebellion, where zei may be a better word than fei.

The area under consideration is south eastern China -- the area along the Pacific from just north of Hong Kong, south to the Vietnam border.

Something else that the Anglophone and Chinese worlds have in common is the romantic view of banditry (as well as of its sea-faring cousin, piracy). English speaking folk think of Robin Hood. Chinese literature has analogs: the bandit as sympathetic nonconformist.

My apologies if this infliction of my first notes seems chaotic. That will be all for now.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog