Attitudes of China and Japan to reform 1861-1894 Louise

Restoration in Japan and China The Self-strengthening movement in China centred around keeping Chinese Confucian values, with limited foreign intervention. They wished to strengthen the country from within, maintaining as much of the traditional Chinese system as possible. The Meiji restoration however, was about “rich country, strong army.” They intended to “use the barbarian to control the barbarian.” Japan strengthened herself through internal efforts coupled with external investment and help. There were several key differences between the two reform movements. These differences were likely what made the Meiji restoration so successful, yet not the self strengthening movement. There were, however, also some similarities.

Points of Contrast: Reformists China Japan The leaders of the self strengthening movement were scholars, but not necessarily of high status or birth Zuo Zong-Tang for instance was born to a poor family, and failed the imperial exam several times. Many acted out of self interest, for own, or families financial gain. The leaders were already members of the Japanese elite, Samurai. This was not a rebellion of the masses against a regime. It was a transfer of power from one elite to another. Most genuinely wanted to help Japan.

Points of Contrast: Approach to the Reform China Japan There was little unity or co-ordination between the reformers in China. Each leader had their own area of reform. For example, Zuo Zong-Tang focused on agriculture, Zeng Guo-Fan on education. There was co-ordination between different areas. All areas built up simultaneously and were interlinked, eg, taxes paid for industry. Happened quickly, in the space of a few decades

Points of contrast: Attitude to Foreigners China Japan Self-strengthening was about strengthening china from within, with little foreign aid. Only Feng Gui-Fen wanted foreigners to play a major role in the self-strengthening Japan based its army upon the German army. Foreign manager and advisors brought in to set up heavy industry. Western learning (Rangaku) adopted by many.

Points of contrast: Approach to Education China Japan Generally stuck to a strict Confucian curriculum. Some foreign forms of education adopted. A foreign language school was built in Shanghai. Some students sent to universities abroad Two forms of education were adopted; Rangaku: Dutch learning. Taught western science and medicine in particular Kokugaku: National learning. Focused on traditional Japanese values. Eventually the two combined; Western science, Japanese values

Points of Comparison: Formation of a Modern Army China Japan The Chinese army was greatly improved. Li Hong Chang’s army became the beginnings of a modern army. Structurally weak, but strong in terms of military strength. Some weapons purchased from abroad by Rong Hong. Some officers sent to Germany to observe Japanese army greatly strengthened. Was able to defeat the Chinese army in Korea in 1882 Based upon the German army, and so was structurally sound and militarily strong.

Points of Comparison: Tax Reforms China Japan Attempts were made to regulate land tax. This would go to pay for enterprise and industry. Attempts were made to reduce the amount of tax paid. Taxes were changed to land value tax. This was lowered to 2.5% after protests Taxes provided most of the income for the industries and enterprise.

Conclusion There were far more differences between the two restorations than there were similarities. Firstly, those who carried out the reforms were of different social classes. The reformists in China were also un-coordinated with little cooperation, whereas in Japan everything worked smoothly side by side. The Chinese were far less welcoming of foreigners than Japan. Both adopted forms of education that included some aspect of western learning, and both included western aspects in the construction of their armies. Finally, both lowered their taxes, but still used the revenue to fund industry and enterprise.