The Economist has an article on the Boxer Rebellion that is interesting. The comments are interesting too. One of the things I like about the Boxer Rebellion is that the deeper one goes, the more ambiguity one finds. In the article and in the comments we can see the struggle to claim that one side, or one view, is righteous. In order to achieve this, one has to use powerful tools of reduction. So that is an interesting exercise, while I was reading it I was trying to identify the reduction. What is being conflated? What is being left out?