Patrick Fuliang Shan | Insecurity, Outlawry and Social Order: Banditry in China's Heilongjiang Frontier Region, 1900–1931 | Journal of Social History, 40.1

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the Journal of Social History online. About 621 words from this article are provided below; about 14424 words remain.

If you are an individual subscriber to the Journal of Social History, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a subscriber to the Journal of Social History, you can:: • subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of Social History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to the journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

Patrick Fuliang Shan | Insecurity, Outlawry and Social Order: Banditry in China's Heilongjiang Frontier Region, 1900–1931 | Journal of Social History, 40.1 | The History Cooperative

INSECURITY, OUTLAWRY AND SOCIAL ORDER: BANDITRY IN CHINA'S HEILONGJIANG FRONTIER REGION, 1900–1931

By Patrick Fuliang Shan Grand Valley State University

Banditry poses a major social problem for frontier societies. A sparsely populated land that lacks effective jurisdiction provides room for bandits to emerge and maneuver. In China's northeasternmost province of Heilongjiang, which borders on Russia, banditry was pervasive during the period of the region's development, particularly from 1900 to 1931. According to local records, almost every county suffered raids. Nevertheless, despite the disruption caused, bandits did not possess sufficient cohesiveness or momentum to establish a regional power base. Rather, they tended to form relatively small bands of several dozen to a few hundred members, reaching a thousand men on rare occasions. They roamed the land to prey upon settlers, revenge themselves on the authorities, and even to act, as they claimed, as local agents of rough justice.	1
Frontier regions, almost by definition, lack strong governance. Heilongjiang was such a region. Larger than either Germany or Britain, it was designated by the last Chinese dynasty, the Qing (1644–1912), as a military frontier. Chinese immigration and settlement were prohibited. Some illegal immigrants ventured into the region, but the land was still thinly inhabited at the beginning of the 20th century. Fearing that Heilongjiang might fall victim to China's expansionist neighbors, Russia and Japan, the Qing overall opened the frontier to Chinese settlement in 1904. Three years later Heilongjiang was established as a province. With the official barrier removed, a steady flow of settlers arrived from China Proper [China south of the Great Wall], particularly from Shandong province. From 1904 to 1931, more than four million people came as new residents.	2
The development of civil institutions could not keep pace with the rapid growth of settlement, thus leaving something of a power vacuum which facilitated the emergence of banditry as a social phenomenon. Settlers sought assistance from the government, but much of the time they had to provide for their own self-protection. Frontier society in effect consisted of three armed camps: government acting as the legal authority, bandits roving as predators, and civilians trying to defend themselves. When the government presence was strong, banditry waned. The civilian militia was not a decisive force, though many times it successfully fended off small bands of bandits. Ironically, the three forces were interchangeable. Sometimes the government persuaded bandits to join army or local police units. Bandits, for their part, recruited both soldiers and members of civilian society. In the absence of strong governmental authority, banditry could not be eradicated, though it could be driven out of sight in limited areas when either government or settlers possessed sufficient military strength.	3

I. Origins of Banditry in Heilongjiang
Even a brief survey of the history of Heilongjiang shows the pervasiveness of outlawry. Local annals record bandit attacks occurring almost every year. Peaceful intervals occurred from time to time in specific areas, but banditry persisted. What caused this troublesome phenomenon?	4
Since Eric Hobsbawm published Bandits in 1969, his hypothesis that bandits were a product of agricultural society has been widely accepted.¹ A number of scholars have applied and broadened Hobsbawm's theory in studying banditry in various societies.² Phil Billingsley applied this concept to his study of North China banditry and argued that factors such as rural overpopulation, social conflict, a poverty-ridden majority and imperial decay further contributed to the phenomenon.³ These assumptions are quite convincing in regard to outlawry in North China, but cannot properly explain banditry in Heilongjiang. A few connections to the social banditry model existed, and some myths emerged that pointed in the same direction, but the phenomenon as a whole was different.	. . .

There are about 14424 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.