From “盡忠報國” to “精忠報國”: How a Historical Phrase Was Rewritten

---

From “盡忠報國” to “精忠報國”: How a Historical Phrase Was Rewritten

The story of the famous general Yue Fei (岳飛, 1103–1142) and the four characters on his back is one of the most enduring symbols of loyalty in Chinese tradition. However, the widely known phrase “精忠報國” (jingzhong baoguo, “serve the country with utmost purity of loyalty”) is actually a later, popular distortion of the original historical record, which gave instead the words “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo, “serve the country with one’s utmost devotion”).

In the official Song dynasty history, the Song Shi (《宋史》), Yue Fei’s biography clearly states that his back was inscribed with “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo), deeply carved into the skin by his mother, as a lifelong injunction to serve the nation to the utmost. This phrase means “to exhaust one’s loyalty and effort for the country” — it emphasizes total dedication, effort until the end, and moral responsibility, framed in a Confucian sense of duty to the ruler and state.

The form “精忠報國,” however, does not appear in the original Song records as the words on Yue Fei’s back. Instead, it originated from the imperial banner given to Yue Fei by Emperor Gaozong of Song, who wrote “精忠岳飛” (Jingzhong Yue Fei — “Yue Fei, with pure and perfect loyalty”) on a banner to reward his general’s military service. “精忠” (jingzhong) means “pure, refined loyalty” — a more idealized, almost spiritual form of loyalty, closer to an imperial label of virtue than a personal vow.

Over later centuries, especially in Ming and Qing dynasty novels, operas, and folk traditions, the two concepts blurred. People began to conflate the banner’s “精忠岳飛” with the tattoo on his back, and the phrase was transformed into “精忠報國” as the popular version of Yue Fei’s motto. This version entered modern textbooks, school plays, and propaganda images in the 20th century, especially in mainland China and Taiwan, where the state used Yue Fei as a model of loyalty and patriotism.

The significance of this change is profound:

• Historical → Symbolic: Yue Fei’s personal vow of “盡忠報國” (doing one’s utmost for the country) was replaced by “精忠報國” (loyalty of perfect purity), turning a historical figure into a state-sanctioned icon.

• Effort vs. Purity: “盡忠” emphasizes action, perseverance, and moral effort, while “精忠” shifts focus to moral purity and unquestioning obedience, making it more useful for state propaganda.

• State appropriation: The change allowed authorities to redirect loyalty from the people’s duty to the state toward an ideal of loyalty to the state itself, often regardless of the ruler’s virtue or justice.

In modern usage, “精忠報國” has become a standard patriotic slogan, especially in military and school education, but it obscures the original Confucian spirit of “盡忠報國” — a call to serve the nation fully, even when the state is flawed, not simply to obey it.

 

The Three Pillars of Commitment: “Bao 報”, “Bao 保”, and “Bao 包” in Chinese Culture and Their Link to Deng Xiaoping’s Contracting System

Chinese society has long been shaped by a set of implicit cultural logics that define relationships, duties, and social expectations. Among these, the trio of “報” (repayment), “保” (preservation), and “包” (total responsibility) forms a subtle but powerful framework. Although these three characters share phonetic similarity, their meanings extend in different directions—together forming a uniquely Chinese way of understanding obligation and trust.

1. 報: The Logic of Reciprocity, Gratitude, and Vengeance

In Chinese thought, 報 carries three major strands:

1. 報償 — to repay what one has received.

2. 報答 — to return kindness, often with loyalty.

3. 報仇 — to repay harm, often through vengeance.

This dual nature—gratitude and vengeance—reflects the Confucian belief that relationships are moral transactions. Good deeds must not go unanswered; nor should injustice remain unresolved. To Chinese society, one who cannot “報” is unreliable, unrooted, and unbound by duty.

2. 保: The Responsibility to Uphold, Maintain, and Defend

保, by contrast, emphasizes continuity. It implies:

• to preserve what has been entrusted,

• to maintain stability, and

• to protect people or resources under one’s care.

“保” expresses a commitment not to innovate radically but to safeguard what must not be lost—family, property, agreements, loyalty. It is the cultural basis for why Chinese clans emphasized guardianship and why imperial administrators were judged by their steadiness, not flamboyance.

3. 包: Total Responsibility, Full Commitment

包 suggests wholeness, completeness, and full accountability.
To “包” something is to take full charge of it, without excuses or partial responsibility.

In traditional society, someone who “包” a task is not only performing it—they are guaranteeing its outcome. This became the root concept behind many contractual, guild, and village arrangements.

Connecting These Concepts to Deng Xiaoping’s Contracting System (承包制度)

During the reform era of the late 1970s and 1980s, Deng Xiaoping introduced the system of 承包—contract responsibility, applying market principles to agriculture, state-owned enterprises, and local governance.

This policy resonated strongly with traditional cultural principles:

• 承包 = 包 (full responsibility)
  Contractors guaranteed output, profit, or quotas, taking total responsibility for results.

• 成功要報 (reward)
  Those who met quotas were rewarded—fitting the moral logic of “報償”.

• 地方需保 (preserve stability)
  Local officials had to “保” order and continuity, upholding production and social stability.

But the Pitfalls: When Cultural Concepts Become Economic Distortions

The cultural resonance of 報、保、包 made the contracting system feel natural—but also created long-term weaknesses:

1. 包 leads to over-responsibilization
   Local cadres “包” everything—taxes, growth, stability—leading to abuse, corner-cutting, and falsification.

2. 報 encourages transactional loyalty
   Rewards created networks of personal repayment (報償), sometimes drifting into corruption or patron-client ties.

3. 保 reinforces risk-aversion
   Officials avoided bold reform to “保” their positions, leading to stagnation or bureaucratic conservatism.

Thus, the contracting system succeeded in unleashing productivity but also carried deep cultural risks.
The trio of 報、保、包—core to Chinese ethics—became tools for both rapid development and systemic imbalance.

The Weight of Gold and Order: Why China’s Values Echo the Pagan Pragmatism of Rome

 

The Weight of Gold and Order: Why China’s Values Echo the Pagan Pragmatism of Rome

The Gods of Status and Stability

In the Western mind, the concept of universal human dignity has become the air we breathe. We take for granted the intrinsic worth of the individual—the very idea that the life of the weakest citizen, the prisoner, or the social outcast holds an equal, sacred value to that of the emperor or the billionaire. But as my work in Dominion attempts to show, this notion is not a natural inheritance of humankind; it is a profoundly Christian imposition, a radical departure from the moral norms of the pre-Christian world.

To understand a major power that stands outside this Christian paradigm, we must look backward, beyond the revolutionary message of the Crucifixion, and toward the classical world—specifically, to Rome.

Ancient Rome, for all its colossal achievements in law, engineering, and conquest, was governed by naked power and unflinching status. The Romans were masters of a cruel pragmatism. Compassion was not a virtue; it was often a weakness. Justice was defined by hierarchy; the life of a citizen was immeasurably more valuable than that of a slave. The purpose of the individual was to serve the greater glory of the Pax Romana—the peace established through overwhelming dominance.

It is in this moral landscape of pre-Christian utility that we can find uncanny echoes in the modern system of China.

The Return of Utilitarian Hierarchy

While China is shaped by its own immense traditions—Confucianism, Legalism, and modern Communism—its governing moral principles today demonstrate a fascinating continuity with the pagan Roman focus on order, power, and utility.

1. The State as the Ultimate Judge: In Rome, the Res Publica (the Commonwealth) and later the Emperor were the supreme moral arbiters. The state was not merely a servant of the people; it was their master, demanding ultimate allegiance. Likewise, the dominant philosophy in contemporary China centers on state stability and national rejuvenation. Individual freedoms, conscience, and political dissent are not dismissed as wrong, but as subordinate to the collective strength and security of the Party-State. This is the very definition of the pagan principle of utility: the individual exists to serve the dominance of the power structure.

2. The Absence of the Lowly’s Sacredness: The Christian story—the worship of a crucified slave—revolutionized Western ethics by sanctifying weakness. Rome scorned weakness. China’s system, prioritizing talent, efficiency, and demonstrable contribution to the nation, mirrors Rome’s focus on status and demonstrated competence. When the system deals with critics, dissenters, or marginalized groups, the state's judgment is prioritized because, like Rome, the core assumption of universal, God-given individual rights is simply absent from the operational manual. If a citizen’s existence threatens the Pax Sinica (the Chinese Peace), their sacrifice is viewed as pragmatic and necessary, not as a moral outrage against a divine order.

3. The Cult of Wealth and Strength: Roman society was obsessed with exhibiting virtus (manly virtue/dominance) often demonstrated through spectacular wealth and conquest. Today, both Beijing and Rome celebrate monumental construction, economic mastery, and the projection of military strength as the ultimate proof of their moral superiority and right to rule. There is no fundamental suspicion of power, privilege, or wealth in the way it later arose in the Christianized West.

To a Westerner, the idea of sacrificing a minority group’s rights for economic stability seems barbarous; yet, to a Roman senator—or, arguably, a modern Chinese official operating without the deep, nagging moral inheritance of Christianity—it is merely a sensible calculation.

The modern West, even in its most secular iterations, fights these battles using vocabulary (equality, human rights, the weak being worthy of protection) forged in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. China, having developed largely outside this revolution, operates on the older, more ruthless, but profoundly logical principles of Imperial Rome: Order by Dominance. The only question is how long this new Pax can maintain the spectacular tension between material affluence and moral detachment.