It turned out that Empress Dowager Cixi did not say this sentence, and the former Minister of Military Affairs of the Qing Dynasty resolutely said something similar. According to Liang Qichao's "coup of 1898", after the failure of the Reform Movement of 1898, he resolutely said to people: "My family's industry would rather be given to friends than slaves." Later, with the rise of xenophobia, the revolutionaries turned this sentence into "I would rather give it to a friendly country than a domestic slave" out of political needs, which is said by Cixi. But it is not wrong for Cixi to blame her for the "crime", because when Eight-Nation Alliance invaded China in Xin Chou, Cixi was glad that the powers did not regard her as the "culprit" and continued to save the Qing government. She happily approved the "Xin Chou Treaty" and said, "Measure China's material resources to please the country."
This is a naked reactionary traitor. According to the class theory, Cixi, fortitude and others belong to the ruling class and have vested interests in the existing social order. The purpose of all their rational activities is to maintain and consolidate their autocratic rule. At that time, it was at the beginning of the twentieth century, and the Qing government was in turmoil. People of insight had seen that the Qing government building was about to collapse. Can't Cixi, who looks at the whole country, see it? I was also fascinated by the authorities and didn't wake up from my dream. Or because you don't have enough knowledge, you can't see the dead end ahead, and you still insist on saying such stupid things? I put forward my own point of view to explain Cixi's behavior.
First, for the safety of life. Judging from the social situation at that time, whether it was peasant uprising or revolutionary struggle, their main spearhead was the Qing government. This kind of struggle is a life-and-death struggle. If overthrown, the fate of its rulers will be tragic. For AIA, all they want is raw materials, markets and even land. For Cixi, these things are just some data, not life. These data are more or less, and she lives well and comfortably. Just pay attention to the boundaries of people's resistance when giving it to "AIA". Therefore, it seems that Cixi's behavior is reasonable. "Domestic slaves want my life, and friends want my money." Do you think Cixi is going to die or want money?
The second is the question of "whose is this world?" In Manchu eyes, the world belongs to them, so the children of the Eight Banners can get something for nothing and give it to whoever they want. In the eyes of Han people, it's just that Manchu people live in the Central Plains temporarily. Sooner or later, the world will still belong to the Han people, and the Manchu people will not unite. After decades of slaughter, Manchu people have put forward the slogan "Man-Han family" since they entered the customs! Its essence is to make Han people obey Manchu rule. From the perspective of reverse thinking, the proposal of "Man-Han family" just shows that the contradiction between Man and Han was very sharp at that time. The "haircut order" cut off half the dignity of the Han people and the "slave" took the other half. Then the Han people lost their dignity and obeyed. A forced obedience, never a real identity.
Here again involves the issue of national integration. The so-called ethnic integration means that two equal ethnic groups merge on the basis of long-term growth of the same sex, and ethnic differences can eventually disappear and merge into a new ethnic group. Since the Qin and Han Dynasties, China has experienced two great ethnic amalgamations: one was Wuye China in Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, the other was the ethnic amalgamation in Liao, Song, Xia, Jin and Yuan Dynasties, and the second amalgamation produced a new ethnic group-Hui, which was the peak of ethnic amalgamation.
In these two national integrations, there was turmoil, and ethnic minorities and Han people killed each other and assimilated each other. Eliminate differences in endless disasters and gradually have the same economic life, cultural customs and psychological quality in the same region. Then they developed a sense of identity with each other and finally completed the real integration. However, the Yuan Dynasty implemented a four-class system, and Mongolian rulers deliberately used ethnic contradictions to create grade differences, which hindered ethnic integration to some extent and made them dig their own graves. Therefore, in the twenty-seventh year of Yuan Dynasty to Zheng Zheng, when Zhu Yuanzhang shouted the slogan of "expelling the Tatars and restoring China" during his northern expedition, people gathered to respond and seized the grain, and * * * resisted the brutal rule and national oppression of Meng Yuan.
In contrast, the Qing Dynasty adopted a national policy similar to that of the Yuan Dynasty: national oppression. Let the Han nationality, which accounts for the vast majority of the population in the country, change customs and observe a backward custom. Firmly controlling confidential posts reflects the fear of Manchu rulers. During the 260-year rule, Manchu nobles never forgot that they were only Manchu, and sometimes they vaguely asked themselves, "Are we from China?" When we look back at the story in the northeast, this idea is suddenly thrown out of the cloud nine. Because of this, they can let go, and they won't feel pain when "friends" desperately want money and market. They didn't grow up drinking the Yellow River water, and there was no real integration between Manchu and Han. Therefore, Cixi can say that she can also be a "national favor".
The third point leads from the above. Suppose it was the Han regime at that time? Assuming that the Tian Ping regime overthrew the Qing government and established state power in the 1960s, can the attitude of fighting for every inch of land in the face of foreign powers' bullying and resistance to aggression remain unchanged while excluding ethnic issues? I can't push it out. There was great uncertainty in the hypothesis, and the conclusion drawn from the hypothesis on the basis of the hypothesis is meaningless.
However, the answer may be given from another angle: does the current government have policies and words and deeds similar to those of the Qing Dynasty?