Ramifications of Two Divergent Paths: A Comparative Study of 1900 and 2020 Crises in China

China experienced two significant crises in history and recent times. Both the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 caused immense impacts on Chinese history and the current situation. The effects of the 1900 crisis and the 2020 crisis in China were both internal and external, domestic and international. Since the relevant research in the comparison and contrast of these two crises is scarce in whether their similarities and differences, this research will provide a comparative study of 1900 and 2020 Chinese Crises, exploring the ramifications and influences of these two tremendous “catas-trophes”. This paper will provide the context of the Chinese 1900 and 2020 Crises, the Chinese government’s actions and responses to the plights in different stages, and the divergent consequences of these two paths. Ramifications of Two Paths: A


Introduction
The Chinese government faced two great crises in 1900 and 2020, and there were diverse similarities between them. Since the responses by the Qing dynasty and the current Chinese Communist Party government to crises were significantly different, they respectively caused divergent paths. The Boxer Rebellion of the early 1900s was an uprising against foreigners living in China and their Chinese collaborators. In response to the Rebellion, The Eight-Nation Alliance of eight countries invaded China to suppress the riots and restore imperial control. The

The Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901)
The Boxer rebellion, which lasted from 1899 to 1901 in China, was a violent revolt. Rebellion at its foundation was a grassroots movement aimed at expelling the Western nations' unwelcome influence. There were enormous numbers of destitute and jobless people in northern China who supported the uprising. The Righteous and Harmonious Fists (Yihequan) was a secret group that spearheaded the Boxer rebellion. Western media reported these young Chinese men were dubbed "The Boxers" because of their military training (Harrington, 2010: p. 1). It was Christian missionaries and Western innovation that enraged the Boxers the most. According to many in China, the country's culture and governance were being undermined by outside influence. The Boxers killed many Christian missionaries and Western diplomats to free China of foreign intrusion. Similarly, foreign property like railways, Christian churches, embassies, and other institutions was also targeted for destruction.
The Boxers employed a combination of spirituality and religion with militarism and martial arts. Both physical and spiritual discipline was essential components of their regimen. Fighting for a good cause, the Boxers felt, made them impenetrable to the bullets and swords of their opponents (Pye & Preston, 2001: p. 185). The Boxers were joined in battle by several other anti-foreign organizations. A group of young ladies known as the Red Lanterns (Hongdengzhao), for example, merged faith and martial arts in their fight against foreign influences (Chandler, 2012: p. 1). Through their militancy and unwavering faith in the rightness of their cause, groups such as the Red Lanterns, the Boxers, and others tried to revive China. Western diplomats and Christians in Beijing, the Boxer Rebellion capital, were forced into the safety of their embassies and churches.
Boxer Rebellion arose as a result of both internal and external pressures in China. Commercial, political, and  Cixi (Esherick, 1988: p. 289). The empress decided to take a neutral stand at the beginning of the boxer rebellion to see how the movement would fair. As the Rebellion continued to advance towards Beijing, government officials started to take note of the movement's advances and potential. On June 16, 1900, Empress Dowager Cixi called for a meeting to discuss how the government should approach or react to the boxer rebellion at the turn of the new century. The officials present at the meeting discussed the possibility of supporting the boxer rebellion because the group could help the government drive the foreigners away.
They also discussed the possibility of a diplomatic solution (Esherick, 1988: p. 289 short-lived but costly to both sides (Purcell, 2010: p. 251). However, the move made it clear that the Qing dynasty was on the side of the Boxer Rebellion (please see Figure 1).

The Consequence of the Boxer Rebellion in the 1900s
The teaming up of the Boxer Rebellion and the Qing dynasty and the subsequent attack of Taku Forts by the Qing dynasty was reciprocated by excessive force and brutality from the allied forces of Britain, Germany, Russian, US, France, and Japan. The troops attacked villages and killed people suspected to be members of the Boxer Rebellion and their sympathizers, especially in the provinces of Zhili and Shandong. During this campaigns, thousands of villagers in rural China were killed (Chen, 1972: p. 79). The allied forces also looted the locals and destroyed their properties. In fact, looting was a core part of the punitive exercises executed by British troops and was endorsed from above. One of the allied forces that issued what seemed to be a thread to the Boxer Rebellion was the Germans (Hevia, 2007: p. 94). In "Hun Speech" (1900), Wilhelm II (1900) state that the German troops were going to ruthlessly deal with the Boxer Rebellion and show them that messing with the Germans is ill-advised and misguided ("'Hun Speech' Wilhelm II (1900)"). The German troops executed this threat by implementing systematic punitive measures in villages, especially in the rural areas where the Boxer Rebellion was popular. The brutality of the allied forces towards the Chinese civilians was criticized world word by some members of the political class and the media. The media covered accounts of looting and other atrocities (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007: p. 101). Keen to preserve her position, Empress Dowager Cixi agree to come to the discussion table to negotiate the end of the conflict. The discussions lead to the signing of the Boxer Protocol, the signing was carried out on September 7, 1901. The terms of the agreement required that China pay reparations to the countries affected by the Rebellion. In addition, the Chinese government had to admit representatives from foreign embassies and consulates into their country to protect both foreigners and Chinese Christians (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007), which established "state within a state" in China and greatly infringed upon Chinese so- vereignty. Some members of the Qing dynasty accused of causing the upheaval were also executed to appease the allied forces who were putting pressure on the Chinese government following the Boxer Rebellion (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007: p. 78). Despite the pressure, the Qing dynasty survived past the Rebellion.
Although the Boxer Rebellion ended in a fashion that seemed or felt like a defeat to the Rebellion and the Qing dynasty, the rebels achieved what they wanted. They showed the allied nations that directly colonizing China's people would be a challenge. Therefore, the foreigners abandoned original plans of colonizing China directly. Instead, they opted to manipulate the Qing dynasty leaders like Empress Dowager Cixi because it was easier to deal with these people's government. The Chinese public was seeing the manipulation, and as a result, the ruling Qing elites were being challenged by both internal forces (i.e. the Chinese public and revolutionary parties) and external forces (i.e. the allied forces), which led to a gradual weakening of the Qing dynasty as the central authority in China. In 1912, the Qing dynasty collapsed following its gradual deterioration since the 1901 Boxer Protocol (please see Figure 2 and Figure 3).   tion and assesses if they need to be restricted. The public surveillance system, that can detect and penalize people strolling in publicly without a face mask and recognize those who are developing symptoms, has also proved effective in disease control and monitoring. Since the SARS pandemic, this technology has been proven to be successful and recently improved to add face recognition and cover the entire country of China (please see Figure 4).

Covid-19 Crisis of 2020 in China
According to Chinese officials, Wuhan and Hubei provincial cities were put under lockdown on January 24 by shutting down the airports and suspending every means of public transit, preventing anybody from entering or exiting the cities. This was arrived at and issued the day before the Chinese festival of spring to limit the extremely population mobility, minimizing the disease's transmission. This announcement was made. In addition, all shops apart from the ones that sold food and medication were closed, and rigorous quarantine measures were imposed (please see Figure 5). Figure 4. Chinese residents wearing mask as a control measure (Kin, 2020). During the Covid-19 prevention initiatives, the Chinese Government required everyone wear face masks to prevent the spread of the deadly virus from one person to another. Mandatory putting on of the facemasks in public places is one of the collective measures that the government of China imposed to manage the crisis.  (Lin, 2021: 2). New incidence and mortality rates began to fall off in late February due to all the steps taken and people's dedication. Infected patients have recovered at a rate of 95% or higher, indicating that the treatment is working.

The Consequence of Covid-19 Crisis of 2020
The social life of people in China was significantly affected by the pandemic.
Equally important, economic life was also impacted. The greatest challenges include declining product demand, supply crisis, empty workplaces, important economic projects were temporarily or completely halted, and uncertain investment prospects affected investment (Hessler, 2020a). The impact resulted from Covid-19 itself and the measures taken by the government to contain the infection. The Chinese government took drastic measures to contain the epidemic.
The primarily affected city of Wuhan in Hubei, where a significant portion of China's economic output is generated was de facto sealed off from the rest of China on January 23, 2020 (Hessler, 2020b). In addition, any form of gathering of people was banned. Gatherings and social distance restrictions were also in- Communist Party government were tough and aggressive, they were effective and comparatively resultful. The country got back on its feet and reopened the economy. The public immensely praised the communist party for its swift, resultful actions. Since then, the government has continued to collect plus points, not just because they have managed to keep the number of infections low, but because they are doing well in controlling the disease than Western countries.
There has been a rise in tension between China and the United States due to the emergence of COVID-19. Rarely is viral breakout discussed as a factor in international relations between superpowers, nor is the study conducted to explore the possible impact of a virus epidemic on public opinion regarding a nation's foreign policy (Lin, 2021: p. 2). People believe that the Chinese government is to blame for the U.S. disagreement with China, and they are more inclined to embrace harsh policy alternatives. U.S. citizens believe China is to blame for the outbreak of the disease. During the epidemic, the Chinese government's activities may have left some Americans with the idea that the Chinese government has jeopardized American lives and economic prosperity (Lin, 2021: p. 2).

The 1900 Crisis versus 2020 Crisis in China
The two crises in China are similar in that the Chinese government is being blamed for their occurrence. Foreigners and Christian missionaries were opposed by the Chinese government, which supported the uprising (Lin, 2021: p. 2).
China was the first to report about the 2020 pandemic. In other nations, the epidemic has been viewed as a deliberate released by China's government.
Several issues were afflicting China at the time, and the country was in tur- view the government's reaction to the outbreak positively (Miller, 2004: p. 78).
The Chinese government appears to have maintained or perhaps significantly improved its standing in the public's eyes (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236).
China's response to COVID-19 has been widely praised by its people but also foreigners of China, to varying degrees. A Chicago Council-Levada Analytical Center poll from January 29-February 1, 2021, found that 53% of Americans believe China has successfully dealt with the epidemic, compared to 36% who believe the United States has been successful (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236).
Whether the Boxers should be understood as anti-imperialist, patriotic and proto-nationalist from the start and fruitless inevitable change opponents has been a point of contention from the first. A key occurrence in Chinese contemporary history has no such wide variety of expert interpretation, according to Joseph Esherick, who claims that "confusion over the Boxer Uprising is not merely a consequence of popular misunderstandings" (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236).
Liberals in China, like Hu Shih, were quick to decry the Boxers' barbarism and folly. First, the Nationalist leader Sun Yat-sen assumed that the Boxer uprising was the result of government rumors that "created uncertainty among the masses together with the scathing condemnation" of "anti-foreignism and obscurantism" of the rebellion (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236.
Sun referred to the Boxers as "bandits", but he lauded their "spirit of resistance", which shocked foreigners with Chinese national integrity. Some students had mixed feelings about the Boxers, saying that the insurrection began from "ignorant and obstinate individuals in the interior provinces," yet their principles were "brave and virtuous" and might "be converted into a driving force for freedom." At some point after 1911, nationalist Chinese were more sympathetic to Boxers than they had been before. In 1918, Sun lauded the Boxers for their tenacity and bravery in the face of the Allies, citing the Battle of Yangcun as an example. To Chen Duxiu, the New Culture Movement leader, the savagery of Boxer could be forgiven "given the atrocity foreigners did in China" and that those who were "subservient to foreigners" were the ones who "earned our hatred." The boxer rebellion was handled differently as compared to the Covid-19 crisis. The government of China used the Covid-19 crisis to gain respect and more recognition from the way it handled the crisis as seen from the way the country put tight and effective measure to control the crisis despite the fact that the epidemic started in the country (Lin, 2021: p. 141). In the struggle against the new coronavirus illness 2019 (COVID-19), China's medical emergency monitoring system and ability for governance will be put to the ultimate test by this disease (Lin, 2021: p. 143). The fight against the pandemic has uncovered several vulnerabilities and loopholes, including the essential to build a system that is coordi-Advances in Historical Studies nated for significant assessment of harmful exposure in public health, appraisal, and control and prevention.
In China, the COVID-19 virus has been basically eliminated from the country.

Conclusion
The occurrence of the two crises in China caused diverse impacts on China and its course of history. The Boxer rebellion was a battle against foreign invasion in China's anti-epidemic, including the regular screening of cases, accelerated diagnosis, a rigorous quarantine system for close contacts, and a wide range of educational materials for the general populace to make them learn and comply with control measures, provided a platform for other countries to learn on how they can handle crises from the possible strategies that China implemented, from lockdowns screening of citizens and building facilities to help handle the situation. Although the Chinese government has taken foreign criticism for its tough policy, it has been praised for the way the country was able to handle and contain this great crisis. Both two crises emphasize China's progress over the past 100 years and also some drawbacks, as well as China's similar situation of being excluded by the "Western" nations.

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.