Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Skilled Natives, Inept Coolies: Marmot Hunting and the Great Manchurian Pneumonic Plague (1910–1911)

2012; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 24; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/02757206.2012.697063

1477-2612

Christos Lynteris,

Chinese history and philosophy

Abstract Taking as its setting the great Manchurian pneumonic plague epidemic of 1910–1911, this article examines the construction of epidemiological blame that targeted migrant labourers from the peninsula of Shandong employed in the hunting of the Siberian marmot (Marmota sibirica), a natural reservoir of the disease. The article demonstrates how Chinese epidemiologists sought to pathologize marmot-hunting migrants from Shandong as unskilled pestilent "coolies", while at the same time valorizing Mongol and Buryat marmot hunters as a "native" counter-paradigm; a binary anthropology of skill and sanitation, which instituted "coolies" as an anthropological type essential to the construction of hygienic modernity in China. Keywords: CooliesPlagueManchuriaBiopolitics Acknowledgements The research leading to this article was funded by the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and the Russell Trust and was sponsored by a scholarship of the Department of Social Anthropology of the University of St Andrews. I would like to thank Caroline Humphrey and David Riches for their stimulating commentaries. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Department of Social Anthropology of the University of St Andrews and at the Mongolian and Inner Asian Studies Unit of the University of Cambridge. I would like to thank the participants of these seminars for their comments and criticism. I would also like to thank the staff of the Medical Library of the University of Beijing for their patient help. Notes Although originally an Urdu term (Daniel 2008 Daniel, E. V. 2008. The coolie. Cultural Anthropology, 23 no. 2: 254–278. (doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00009.x)[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), in Chinese the word for "coolie" is a compound of ku meaning bitter, and li, meaning strength. Drischoll's work on Japanese colonialism in early twentieth century Manchuria draws a brief yet enlightening picture of Japanese governmental perceptions of Chinese "coolies". According to Drischoll (2010 Drischoll, M. 2010. Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque; The Living, Dead and Undead in Japan's Imperialism, 1895–1945, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]: 27–29) Japanese colonialists, though initially disturbed by the influx of poor labourers from adjacent Chinese provinces, soon came to see them as the very lifeline of their imperialist project. "Coolies" were seen as a naturally compliant and tireless labour force invested with a unique ability to toil without ever complaining. In this sense, Japanese colonialists "strip[ed] coolie labour of all demands and nearly all human needs" (Drischoll 2010 Drischoll, M. 2010. Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque; The Living, Dead and Undead in Japan's Imperialism, 1895–1945, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]: 28). In 1910 alone the so-called Three Provinces received a total of 219,000 migrant workers from the peninsula of Shandong and another 210,900 from Hebei and Western Shandong (Gottschang & Lary 2000 Gottschang, T. R. and Lary, D. 2000. Swallows and Settlers: The Great Migration from North China to Manchuria, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). It must be noted here that the "coolie" migration to Manchuria was partly circular, with 67% of the migrants from Shandong Peninsula and 36% of migrants from Hebei and Western Shandong returning home by the Chinese New Year (Gottschang & Lary 2000 Gottschang, T. R. and Lary, D. 2000. Swallows and Settlers: The Great Migration from North China to Manchuria, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). That annual return home, which usually started in October, was widely accused as a reason for the widespread distribution of the pneumonic plague in 1910–1911 (Nathan 1967 Nathan, C. F. 1967. Plague Prevention and Politics in Manchuria 1910–1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard East Asian Monographs, Harvard University Asia Center. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). The Guandong or Kwantung Leased Territory was instituted in 1898 as a territorial concession resulting from the defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895. The Guandong Leased Territory included the south tip of the Liaodong peninsula and its capital was Dalian. The territory remained under Japanese control until 1945. At the same time, the South Manchuria Railway Company, under the control of Japan, controlled large territories along its railway tracks including mines, industries and harbours (Yoshihisa 2001 Yoshihisa, T. M. 2001. The Making of Japanese Manchuria 1904–1932, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]). As Drischoll (2010 Drischoll, M. 2010. Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque; The Living, Dead and Undead in Japan's Imperialism, 1895–1945, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]: 39) notes "the most exploitable was coolie labour from Shandong," with companies like Yalu Lumber employing as many as 20,000 seasonal migrant workers from Shandong and Hebei by 1909. The first study of the pneumonic plague was conducted in 1881 by Radcliffe, regarding an outbreak in Vetlianka, a Cossack village by the Volga (Petrie 1924 Petrie, G. F. 1924. A commentary on recent plague investigations in Transbaikalia and Southern Russia. The Journal of Hygiene, 22(4): 397–401. (doi:10.1017/S0022172400008342)[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]: 397). In his "A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague" Wu Lien-teh claimed that "the first record of an illness suggestive of plague dates back to 1863" (Wu 1926 Wu, L.-t. 1926. A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague, Geneva: League of Nations. [Google Scholar]: 67, emphasis in the original), from the village of Zagan-Oluevski in Transbaikalia. Studies of pneumonic plague have resurfaced in the last decade due to the danger of it being used as a biological weapon. For a comprehensive biological profile of the pneumonic plague and its relation to the bubonic type, see Erickson and Hinnebusch (2006 Erickson, D. L. and Joseph Hinnebusch, B. 2006. "Pneumonic Plague". In Microorganisms and Bioterrorism, Infectious Diseases and Pathogenesis, Edited by: Anderson, B., Friedman, H. and Bendinelli, M. 155–181. New York: Springer. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Placing the particular date earlier, the Korean historian Sihn (2009 Sihn, K.-H. 2009. Unexpected success: The spread of Manchurian plague and the response of Japanese colonial rule in Korea, 1910–1911. Korea Journal, 49(2): 165–182. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 168) claims that, "on September 16, 1910, the first plague patient was identified among the Chinese carpenters working near the Russian border". These dates are approximate, as reports are conflicting. So, for example in the First International Plague Conference Report we find Wu Lien-teh claiming the plague reached Harbin on 7 November, only to provide a table a few lines later claiming it arrived at the same city on 4 December 1910. Wu himself admits, "for the accuracy of the dates I cannot vouch" (First International Plague Conference 1911 First International Plague Conference. (1911), Report of the International Plague Conference (held at Mukden in April 1911), Bureau of Printing, Manila. [Google Scholar]: 20). Dr Wu chose that name for the title of his autobiography. I choose to retain the Wade–Giles transcription of Dr Wu's name, as it is the one featuring in all material from the time of the plague. Given the hierarchical nature of the Chinese medical establishment at the time, being the head of the epidemiological apparatus in China, Wu Lien-teh appears as the sole author of scientific articles on matters pertaining to plague. The few alternative scientific sources from the same era on the matter come from colonial medical officers like Reginald Farrar. In this sense, the de facto monopoly of Chinese scientific opinion by Wu must be seen as imperative: Wu's word on plague was canonical and no less than full compliance to it was expected by his subordinates. Lei's (2010 Lei, S. H.-L. 2010. "Sovereignty and the Microscope: Constituting Notifiable Infectious Disease and Containing the Manchurian Plague (1910–11)". In Health and Hygiene in Chinese East Asia: Policies and Publics in the Long Twentieth Century, Edited by: Ki Che Leung, A. and Furth, C. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]) study of the great Manchurian pneumonic plague underlines its role in bringing Western diagnostic and experimental methods to the mainstream of Chinese science. Also spelled tarabagan by the Russians and in many of Wu Lien-teh's reports. Chernin (1989 Chernin, E. 1989. Richard Pearson strong and the Manchurian epidemic of Pneumonic plague, 1910–1911. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Science, 44: 296–319. (doi:10.1093/jhmas/44.3.296)[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) has noted that Western reports at the time often misspelled the word, sometimes even confusing it with the ptarmigan, the Arctic grouse. The Russian word for the animal is ssuriok, while the Chinese word is han ta. Preble (1912 Preble, P. 1912. The tarbagan (Arctomys bobac) and plague. Public Health Reports, 27(2): 32–67. [Google Scholar]: 31) also gives the names sarabagan, sarbagan and phutiya, without explaining their origin or context. In early Anglo-American literature the animal is also simply referred to as "the plague marmot". The scientific name of the animal at the time was Arctomys bobac, while today the name used is Marmota sibirica. The species was classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as endangered in 2008, with researchers like Batbold et al. (2002 Batbold, J., Batsaikhan, N., Tsytsulina, K. & Sukhchuluun, G. (2002), "Marmota sibirica", IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2010.4, [Online] available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12832/0 (accessed 12 June 2011). [Google Scholar]) estimating a collapse of its population by 70% since the dissolution of the USSR, largely due to unregulated overhunting. In this article I adopt the spelling tarbagan unless spelled tarabagan in the original or, where available, in official English translations of the material used. For a history of Russian epidemiological theories on the plague and the tarbagan see Preble (1912 Preble, P. 1912. The tarbagan (Arctomys bobac) and plague. Public Health Reports, 27(2): 32–67. [Google Scholar]). At his opening address to the Plague Conference and representing the throne, Sze claimed: "If we are to believe the able scientists who have already studied the subject, there is present in northwest Manchuria as well as over the greater part of the mountains of Asia a marmot (the tarbagan), a small rodent animal that suffers more or less permanently from swellings, in which plague bacilli are found" (First International Plague Conference 1911 First International Plague Conference. (1911), Report of the International Plague Conference (held at Mukden in April 1911), Bureau of Printing, Manila. [Google Scholar]: 5). The "Third Report on Progress in Manchuria" by the South Manchuria Railway Company (1932 South Manchuria Railway Company. 1932. Third Report on Progress in Manchuria 1907–1932, Dairen: South Manchuria Railway Co. [Google Scholar]: 197) further notes that after the First International Plague Conference "it was arranged that tarbagan hunters should be registered and receive official permits from the authorities; further that two fur-skin disinfecting stations be established at Manzhouli and Hailar respectively under medical direction". As late as 1913, Wu Lien-teh still insisted on the circumstantial relation between the plague and the marmot (Gamsa 2006 Gamsa, M. 2006. The epidemic of pneumonic plague in Manchuria 1910–1911. Past & Present, no. 190, : 147–184. (doi:10.1093/pastj/gtj001)[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). As this was particularly stressed in British public lectures and journals, it might reflect a particular medico-diplomatic strategy on part of Dr Wu. No evidence of such stress is to be found in Chinese sources by the same author. Farrar (1912 Farrar, R. 1912. Plague in Manchuria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 5 (Section of Epidemiology and State Medicine), pp. 1–14[PubMed] , [Google Scholar]: 5) noted: "Thousands also found lucrative and congenial employment in the Transvaal mines till they were recently excluded from South Africa by the action of the British Government. This exclusion had the effect of adding enormously to the usual invasion of Manchuria from Shandong." The First International Plague Conference Report describes Dr Ch'uan Shao Ching as an official of the Fourth Civil Rank, and medical officer at the Pei-Yang Hospital of Tianjin. It is characteristic that although this medical subaltern risked his life by conducting in situ research on the role of marmot and marmot hunting during the apex of the plague outbreak on Manzhouli, his voice is never heard in papers published in medical journals at the time. At the Conference itself apart from a short presentation on his fieldwork, Dr Ch'uan's voice is strikingly absent. This information is in all likelihood a loan of Wu Lien-teh by Skschivan via Tchaoushov according to who, "the most ancient Thibetan [sic] writings describe a disease of tarbagans which was considered to be highly contagious and caused by worms found in the roots of certain plants, and which was transmitted to man" (Preble 1912 Preble, P. 1912. The tarbagan (Arctomys bobac) and plague. Public Health Reports, 27(2): 32–67. [Google Scholar]: 33). Probably referring to Padmasambhava, in his A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague Wu (1926 Wu, L.-t. 1926. A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague, Geneva: League of Nations. [Google Scholar]) claimed that "the great teacher Badmasambaboi (he who came out of the lotus-flower) predicted that a disease would come out of the ground in the plants; from them it would pass to the animals and thence to man, and one-fourth of the population of Asia would succumb" (141). Strangely, in some articles Wu (1928 Wu, L. -T. 1928. The perpetuation of the plague among wild rodents. The American Journal of Hygiene, 8(5): 649–670. [Google Scholar]: 654) contradicts his own theory on the issue of dying, as when he writes: "Most authors agree that plague stricken animals do not seek shelter in the burrows, but stay out and die in the fields. Such rodents have been found on the surface long after the onset of the hibernation period, having either not slept at all, or awakening with the development of symptoms. For these reasons it is doubted by several observers whether the virus is permanently kept alive in the tarbagan. They contend that in autumn a complete separation takes place between healthy animals which retire to the holes, and sick ones which remain outside to die." Providing numerous sketches of marmot burrows, Wu and The Hulun Taotai (1913 Wu, L.-t. and The Hulun Taotai. 1913. First report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service. The Journal of Hygiene, 13(3): 237–290. (doi:10.1017/S0022172400005404)[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]) described this hunting method in detail. One side of a 2-feet long medium-sized iron wire is twisted into a loop to fit the opening of the marmot's burrow while the other end is fixed to the ground above or besides the entrance on a wooden peg: "When the animal comes out, the head and probably also one of the front paws are caught in the loop. The more it struggles the tighter the snare becomes, and in this state the hunter finds the animal when he returns from his rounds" (Wu & The Hulun Taotai 1913 Wu, L.-t. and The Hulun Taotai. 1913. First report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service. The Journal of Hygiene, 13(3): 237–290. (doi:10.1017/S0022172400005404)[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]: 265). See Wu et al. (1923 Wu, L.-t., Chun, J. W. H. and Pollintzer, R. 1923. Clinical observations upon the Manchurian plague epidemic, 1920–1921. The Journal of Hygiene, 21(3): 289–306. [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]: 293). References to this work are very common in epidemiological articles on the plague at the time. Discussed in Wu and The Hulun Taotai (1913 Wu, L.-t. and The Hulun Taotai. 1913. First report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service. The Journal of Hygiene, 13(3): 237–290. (doi:10.1017/S0022172400005404)[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]); see especially Appendix IV: Temperature Observations in Fuchiatien (Harbin) and in Changchun. More than two decades later, and as a result of painstaking experiments on marmots, monkeys, pigs and even donkeys, Wu (1936 Wu, L.-t. 1936. "Hosts and Carriers". In Plague: A Manual for Medical and Public Health Workers, Edited by: Wu, L.-t., Chun, J. W.H., Pollitzer, R. and Wu, C. Y. Shanghai: National Quarantine Service. [Google Scholar]: 206) was confident enough to conclude that the disease was transmitted from marmots to humans post-mortem rather than through coughing: "When handling and skinning the hunted marmots a direct infection through accidentally contracted or pre-existing skin lesions or through tarbagan fleas and even lice is possible. The remarkable tendency of the parasites to stick not only to carcasses but even pelts, which seems to have been the cause of some outbreaks arising in settlements has also to be considered." According to Petrie (1924 Petrie, G. F. 1924. A commentary on recent plague investigations in Transbaikalia and Southern Russia. The Journal of Hygiene, 22(4): 397–401. (doi:10.1017/S0022172400008342)[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]: 399) "the tarbagan flea (Ceratophyllus silantievi) can imbibe human blood; its ability to bite man seems to be widely recognized by the hunters and the steppe dwellers". Delegates to the First International Plague Conference spent considerable time arguing over whether fur coats can be vectors of plague. It is characteristic that during the First International Plague Conference most references to "coolies" as a class came from foreign delegates. This however does not render a class analysis of "coolies" irrelevant, and a future systematic anthropological examination of Chinese "coolies" at home should certainly incorporate a rigorous political economic perspective. As Rogaski (2004 Rogaski, R. 2004. Hygienic Modernity: Meanings of Health and Disease in Treaty-Port China, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 191) has argued, the defeat of the Boxers at the hands of the colonial armies "had proved that Chinese ideas of the physical possibilities of the human body were absurd, superstitious, and unscientific". Examples of these masks can be seen at Strong and Teague (1912 Strong, R. P. and Teague, O. 1912. Studies of Pneumonic Plague and Plague Immunization, II. The Method of Transmission of the Infection in Pneumonic Plague and the Manner of the Spread of the Disease During the Epidemic, Manila: Bureau of Printing. [Google Scholar]: Plate V). Wu (1926 Wu, L.-t. 1926. A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague, Geneva: League of Nations. [Google Scholar]) gives a history of the mask and a technical description in his "A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague" (394). Dr Mesny's death was a no small victory for Wu and his team, as the former had openly insulted Wu by countering his pneumonic explanation by means of typical colonial retort: "You, you Chinaman, how dare you laugh at me and contradict your superior?" (Wu 1926 Wu, L.-t. 1926. A Treatise on Pneumonic Plague, Geneva: League of Nations. [Google Scholar]: 19). In his autobiography, Wu (1959 Wu, L.-t. 1959. Plague Fighter: The Autobiography of a Modern Chinese Physician, Cambridge: W. Heffer. [Google Scholar]) characteristically referred to an unnamed "youngish Japanese doctor" who he found occupying his lab: "in vain did [I] try to explain that the present epidemic was purely man-to-man infection and the household rat played no part in spreading it" (13). It is interesting to note here the comment of Zizek (2010 Zizek, S. (2010), "Deleuze and the Lacanian Real", Symptom 11, [Online] available at http://www.lacan.com/symptom11/?p=346 (accessed 14 January 2011). [Google Scholar]) on Agamben's theory of profanation, where the Slovenian philosopher argues that every act of profanation is simultaneously an act of sacralization. This indeed seems to be the case in the particular use of the gauze mask.