We can find many other examples of the use of these non-violent methods
under similar circumstances. The Chinese made use of the boycott
repeatedly to oppose foreign domination and interference in their
internal affairs in the years before the outbreak of the present war
against Japan. Clarence Case lists five significant Chinese boycotts
between 1906 and 1919. The last one was directed against foreigners _and
the Chinese government_ to protest the action of the Peace Conference in
giving Japan a predominant interest in Shantung. As a result the
government of China was ousted, and the provisions of the treaty
revised. Japan felt the effects of the boycott more than any other
country. Case says of the Japanese reaction:
"As for the total loss to Japanese trade, various authorities have
settled upon $50,000,000, which we may accept as a close
approximation. At any rate the pressure was great enough to impel
the Japanese merchants of Peking and Tientsin, with apparent ruin
staring them in the face, to appeal to their home government for
protection. They insisted that the boycott should be made a
diplomatic question of the first order and that demands for its
removal should be backed by threats of military intervention. To
this the government at Tokio 'could only reply that it knew no way
by which the Chinese merchants, much less the Chinese people, could
be made to buy Japanese goods against their will.'"[33]
This incident calls to mind the experience of the American colonists in
their non-violent resistance to Great Britain's imperial policy in the
years following 1763, which we shall discuss more at length in the next
section.