Following historical tradition, the winners of wars always tell the tale, consequently, the Boxers resulted in a bad reputation as they were opponents of the Westerners(the winners) – however, I would argue the contrary. From the Boxer’s POV (point of view), they are justified for their behaviors as a reaction to the exploitation of foreigners. China had spent years suffering, keeled under the weight of the Opium War and other foreign influences. This eventually forced China to sign treaties favoring the foreigners – following to not only wealth desperations, but a flood of ethnocentric missionaries attempting to convert the Chinese into Christians. This suffering is the origin of the Boxers. Like other countries throughout history faced with colonization, they engaged in varying forms of resistance and adaptation to colonial rule. The Boxer’s behavior derived from attempts to preserve their traditional values and the accumulation of difficulties from negative foreign influences (wealth, religion, land, etc). On top of that, natural disasters such as floods and drought led to hardships. Naturally, boxers viewed foreigners as the root of their issues, in the case of both cultural and general hardships, rationalizing their motives for the rebellion. Should the boxers have a bad reputation when their intentions were to defend their culture and remove hardships? From the Boxer’s perspective, no. However, that is a valid question