AMERICA
1
Johnny Appleseed, whose real name was John Chapman, ended his career at
Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1847. Step by step he made his way over the
wilderness, winning the good-will of the pioneers and the devotion of
the Indians, and planting apple-seeds which time nourished into
orchards. Johnnie Appleseed has been glorified by Vachel Lindsay,--and
with him, not a little of the richness of life that went into the
make-up of America.
Unfortunately, Johnny Appleseed died in Indiana, at the early age of
seventy-two. Had he lived twice as long he would most likely have
reached the coast. By most he was regarded as rather a queer character,
but there were men who felt the current of greatness in his being, and
to-day Johnny Appleseed might well be hailed as the symbol of America.
For if the virtue of England lay in that process of selection which was
the result of "the roving of a race with piratical and poetic instincts
invading old England where few stocks arrived save by stringent
selection of the sea," how much more is the hardihood of pioneering the
very bone and marrow of America. For the sifting process here did not
end merely by the crossing of the Atlantic. To those who broke through
the fears of the Atlantic, lanced the gathering ills of Europe, that
Eastern ocean was only the symbol of a tradition. The way has been kept
open by the passage of millions of men and women and children who, year
after year, for four centuries, have been invading young America. But
what is that coming compared with the arduous reaching out across the
wilderness of this vast continent itself, a reaching that left its
mile-stones in the form of log cabins, graves, and roaring cities.
Following the trade-winds or beating up against the billows of the
Northern seas was a joyous pastime compared with the windless waiting
and tireless pressing on of the prairie schooner. The conquest of the
mountains, of the Mississippi, of the treeless plains, of the desert,
and of the rocky barriers in the farthest West is a story replete with
tragic episodes, and it is destined to become the dominating tradition
of America.
It is a strange story, and because it was essentially so lowly in its
early impulse, because it was seemingly a secondary phenomenon, snobs
and cynics dispose of it with indifference. The movement westward was
undertaken by men of small means and little culture. Pathetic in its
simple requirements, seeking fortunes that always lay on the fringe of
fortune, moving on with a restlessness that seemed to despise rest and
ease, it still left in its wake sorrows that approached tragedy but
never felt it. If "Main Street" is a necessary corrective, "The Son of
the Middle Border" is the crystallization of an unconscious ideal. This
westward movement is a vivid rehearsal of a belated migration that tells
the tale of man's first yielding to the mobile impulse in his nature, an
impulse that has made of him the conqueror of the globe. These thousands
of Johnny Appleseeds were not utilitarian seekers after wealth alone; in
them was the unconscious mother principle yielding to the forces that
were fathering a new race.
And that new race has come. Centuries of arduous trial and tribulation
have molded it. Go where you will, except for some slight differences in
tonal expression, there is one people. Beneath their Americanism are the
crude complexes resulting from a war between refinement and the unkind
forces of nature. The pioneers had all known what civilization meant,
but circumstances thwarted their inclinations. They brought with them a
respect for woman which no other people had known so well. Primitive and
Oriental people--and many European races of to-day--do not have the same
exalted notion of woman, simply because they have developed along with
women whose functions of life were determined by the savage
circumstances. But Americans found themselves in the continent with few
women, and those in danger of savage ruthlessness. Hence they became
doubly concerned for their welfare, even to the point of sentimentalism.
So, too, with regard to personal liberty. The pioneer knew what his
freedom meant to him, and fought for it as a lion or a tiger fights for
his. Too frequently his own freedom could be bought only at the expense
of others around him. The word itself became a magic with esoteric
properties. Hence we find throughout our West a fanatical regard for the
term "freedom" that sometimes works itself into a frenzy of intolerance.
So fine are the achievements of our coast states, on so high a level is
the standard of life, that men cannot see the exceptions. When such are
pointed out to them there arises in their unconscious a fear of those
horrible days, a something which terrified their childhood and which
must be downed as the ghost of a crime one imagines himself to have
committed. Hence, not to be "with" certain people in the West in the
shouting adulation of their state or their city or their orchards is a
worse sacrilege than counteracting one prayer by another ritual. The
winning of the West was the aim of all the pioneers. For years and years
they were faced with the most obvious threats to its consummation.
Mountains, climate, savages, European jealousies, lack of
population,--everything that spelled despair stood before them. But an
uncomprehended passion drove them on. Perhaps it was the recrudescence
of intolerance which marked the early settlers in the East. Perhaps it
was the lack of opportunity resulting from overcrowding after the
advertisement of the desirability of life in America. It may have been
any one of a dozen possibilities that kept men and women moving on and
on and on,--nor always, by any means, the yielding to ideals. But on it
was and on it continued till the Pacific was reached.
This, superficially, is the accepted story of the development of our
West. I have attempted neither criticism nor laudation. It is an
unavoidable approach to the discussion of America's place in the
Pacific, an approach which even the most Western of our Westerners is
not always prone to take cognizance of. But within it lies the kernel of
future American life. To some, like the founders of the State of Oregon,
it was more defined. Some as early as 1844 realized that to the nation
which developed the coast lands belonged the spoils of the Pacific and
in its hands would lie the destinies of the largest ocean on the globe.
The opening of the Panama Canal has placed the Pacific at the door-step
of New York, and fulfilled the dream.
But to the vast majority of people on the coast to-day, occupation and
development of those enormous areas seem to carry with them opportunity,
but little responsibility. They have one concern which is akin to fear,
and that is of the Japanese. They only vaguely grasp the significance of
their fate. They do not see that they have hauled in a whale along with
their catch and that unless they are skilful they will drag the whole
nation into the sea with them.
But if they have forgotten the vision for the appearance of the catch,
what about the East? The East is as indifferent to matters pertaining to
the Pacific and the West. Its face is turned toward Europe. We think
that America is a nation, but the utter ignorance of one section with
regard to another, the lounging in local ease, is appalling. Easterners
are like the philosopher who when told that his house was on fire, said
it was none of his business, for hadn't he a wife to look after such
things! These are strange phenomena in a democracy. People think that
they discharge their duty by voting, but how many people are in the
least concerned with the problems that will some day light up the
country like a prairie fire? Westerners are generally much more
acquainted with Eastern affairs. As unpleasant as is the promotion
publicity of Los Angeles, it is a much more healthful condition than the
seeming ignorance of New York in matters pertaining to Los Angeles.
Yet while the East is aflame over affairs in Europe--the Irish Republic,
for instance--it probably thinks that Korea is the name of a Chinese
joss over which no civilized man should bother to yap about. This
indifference is not to be found in the man on the street alone. That man
is often uninformed simply because the dispensers of information are
uninformed. There is much he would want if he knew its value to him. And
so while we are becoming embroiled in European affairs another and
henceforward more sinister problem is threatening to back-wash over us.
It was while in such an apathetic state that America changed her status
from a continental republic to a colonial empire. Few Americans have
ever taken any interest in their insular possessions. Hawaii and the
rest had fallen to the lot of the Government, and would sooner or later
be returned; that was the sum and substance of their outlook on the
whole affair. That the Monroe Doctrine ceased to be a real factor with
the acquisition of these outlying possessions, that we virtually
abrogated it, did not seem to matter much. At large, the notion was that
American altruism would never involve the country in any difficulty.
But whatever a man's motives, once he has stuck his tongue against a
frozen pipe only a tremendous outpouring of altruism will ever detach
it. America began her adventures in the Pacific when she urged young men
to go West. Now we have the whole continent, we have Hawaii, the
Philippines, Pago Pago, Samoa, and Alaska,--a hefty armful. Are we going
to let these things go, or are we simply going to drift to where they
drag us into conflict with others who want them and want them badly? We
cannot merely blow them full of democracy and then wait for any one who
wishes to to prick the bubbles. For it must be borne in mind that the
issues are clear. The Pacific cannot remain half-citizen and
half-subject. Every time we stir up within a small island the
self-respect of individuals, we destroy the balance of power between an
expression of the wills of people and the wills of autocracies. Is
America going to set out to make the world safe for democracy in Europe
and then withdraw just when Europe needs her help most? Is she going to
continue to make treaties with small nations like Korea and then when
Korea is devoured body and soul simply overlook the little fellow as
though he had never existed.
Let me make the case of Korea clearer by a parallel. We had a treaty
with the Kingdom under which we had assured her that in the event of any
other power interfering with her independence we would exert our good
offices toward an amicable solution. Then came the Russo-Japanese war.
Korea received a pledge from Japan that her sovereignty would be
protected if she permitted Japanese troops to pass over her territory.
Korea, at the risk of being devoured by Russia for violating neutrality,
acceded to Japan's request. Five years after the Russo-Japanese War,
Korea was annexed by Japan, and we said never a word in her favor. Nor
have we ever denounced our treaty with Korea.
But here is the parallel. Belgium refused to let Germany cross her
territory. Because of Germany's invasion of Belgium, Great Britain
entered the war. What if Great Britain now decided to annex Belgium?
What if America did so?
Yet Colonel Roosevelt, who was so vociferous in his denouncement of the
Wilson Administration for its early neutrality in the face of the rape
of Belgium, himself condoned the annexation of Korea by saying that
inasmuch as Korea was unable to defend herself it was not up to us to
rush to her assistance. In other words, our treaty was only a scrap of
paper which was to be in force if the other high contracting party was
strong enough to have no need for our aid.
Is America going to drag China into world wars with promises of
friendship, and then concede Shantungs whenever diplomatic shrewdness
shows her to be beaten? Is she going to promise the Philippines
independence, allow her governor-generals to withhold their veto power
for years so that the natives may the better handle their own affairs,
and then simply let any who will come and undermine or explode the thing
entire?
This is not meant to imply by any manner of means that America is to
display force and employ it for the sake of democracy. It is not navies
nor armies that will count, but principles. It is America's duty as a
free country to encourage freedom and discourage autocracy. And in that
spirit, and that alone, can she justify her place in the sun. On several
occasions she has done so, though only those in which the Pacific are
involved need reference here.
2
Apropos of the Philippines: Two factors and two alone are involved. It
is not a question of whether America shall or shall not hold on to the
islands. In that America has given her word. The Philippines will
become, must become, free. There, as elsewhere, it is not our concern
whether one group or another gains the upper hand. It is not our concern
that the Filipinos, being Malay-Orientals, will evolve a democracy that
is not compatible with our notions of democracy. Our concern is, and has
been repeatedly stated to be, only the welfare and happiness of the
Filipinos. McKinley, Taft, Roosevelt, Wilson,--all have considerably
discoursed upon Filipino independence and Filipino welfare. We have
recently been on the very verge of granting independence, but,
unfortunately, oil has been discovered by the Standard Oil Company, and
the question will doubtless now depend on the amount of oil there is. If
a great deal, then fare thee well Filipino independence! However, the
real reason for our being in the islands is neither the altruistic
concern for the democratization of the people, nor to protect the
immediate interests of sugar, tobacco, or oil-handling capitalists. The
one and only basis for our action should be the extent to which Filipino
independence or our protectorate ministers to the peace of the Pacific.
If an independent Philippines will allay the suspicions of Japan, then
they should be independent. But Japan would have to give more than the
usual promise of her word that she would keep her hands off the
Philippines. The extent to which her word may be relied upon can easily
be determined. One need only mention Korea, Shantung, Siberia, the
Marshall Islands. We say to Japan: "As soon as you live up to the
promises in your treaty and other relations with these Orientals, we
shall be able to accept your further promises in regard to the
Philippines."
Yet it must not be overlooked that Japan saw our coming to the
Philippines with apprehension. Japan is an Oriental nation and cannot
understand any one doing anything out of pure goodness of heart. Fact
is, neither can we. Let the most honest man in the world offer any other
a solid-gold watch and that other would suspect something was wrong. We
declared to the world that we had only the best intentions toward the
Philippines--to democratize them. To Japan that was like holding up a
red flag to a bull. What, you are going to create a democratic sore
right in my neighborhood? That will never do. It might be catching. And
Japan is not interested in contracting democracy as yet,--that is,
official Japan. Even liberal Japanese are doubtful. When in Japan, I
interviewed the democratic M.P., Yukio Ozaki. He turned, without
question from me, to the subject of the fortification of the
Philippines. He pleaded that the forts be dismantled. In the event of
that plea failing, what could Japan do, he asked, other than proceed to
fortify the Marshall Islands? Yet at that time Japan had not even been
granted a mandate over these islands. The logic of his appeal is
irrefutable. But this is a sort of vicious circle. Who is to begin, and
whom shall we trust?
One thing is certain,--that in that whole problem of the control of the
islands of the Pacific, whether by annexation, protection, or mandate,
lies the seed of the future peace of the Pacific. And unless in each and
every case the natives are given the best opportunities of
self-development, that nation responsible for their arrested condition
is going to be the nation upon whose conscience will rest the sorrows of
the world.
In regard to the Philippines, this must be remembered,--that we are
dealing with human beings, not problems and principles. The stuff one
generally reads about foreign places might be just as descriptive of the
inhabitants of Mars. Little wonder that those for or against
independence or protection fail to win their case! We must remember that
for twenty years we have been building up the hopes of children whom we
taught in our schools, with our money and our ideals. They are now, many
of them, active men attending to the work of the Filipino world. They
are our foster-children and would be fools not to want to live their own
lives in their own way. Our policy in regard to them must be a negative
one; from now on it cannot be positive. All we can say to them is what
we cannot and will not permit them to do; we have no right henceforth to
say what they must do. We can say that we will not permit them to invite
any other nation whose governmental ideals are likely to threaten ours.
The world must continue on its road toward the greater and greater
liberation of peoples, hence we cannot permit them to step back toward
any form of imperialism. We cannot permit them to invite unlimited
numbers of Orientals who might swamp them. They must maintain the
Philippines for the Filipinos, with as much generosity thrown in as will
not endanger that. We must remember that our effort in the Philippines
is the first in which any government has attempted to treat its subject
natives with any degree of equality,--legally, if not socially. If the
world is to move on toward greater freedom--which is needed, Heaven
knows!--we must not let the Philippines be an example of the failure of
democratic management of natives.
3
In all this some may discover implications that our hold on the
Philippines should be maintained purely for strategic reasons. That may
be the purpose of the imperialistically minded. There may be some who
will read into this fear of Japan or a bellicose attitude irritable to
her. Neither interpretation would be accurate, for behind all this are
certain historical factors which prove that whatever use statesmen may
make of world situations, evil designs will be frustrated so long as the
circumstances which created the primary conditions were not evil.
Specifically, because the earlier relations between Japan and America
were brought about through essentially good motives, these later
developments can be kept to a sane path. And severe as may be our
present criticisms of Japan, so long as the purposes behind them are
good, they can have only a desirable result.
When Commodore Perry went to Japan in 1853, his only desire was to open
that country to trade. It may seem now that for the sake of peace in the
Pacific it would have been better had he been guided by the spirit of
conquest. Had Japan been conquered in the early days, she would never
have come to the fore as a possible menace. But she was not. It does not
follow, however, that that was unfortunate, for the earliest relations
between Japan and America were amicable and basically altruistic. The
relations between us have continued to be amicable, but altruism has
slowly given way to envy and jealousy. But the point that is missed in
all this reference to these cordial relations of the past is that
inasmuch as America was a great moral influence upon Japan in the early
days, she might continue to be that to-day. Cock-sure as Japanese
statesmen have become, and pugnacious as some Americans seem toward
Japan, a strong moral attitude will still do more to check hostility
than all the shaking of sabers and manoeuvering of dreadnaughts. We
need the Philippines more as a base for democratic experiment than as a
fortified zone. We need them as one needs a medical laboratory for the
manufacture of serums in the time of plague,--for the manufacture of the
serum of political freedom, of the rights of people to develop and to
learn to be free. And this experimental station should stand right there
at the door of Japan--and of British and French concessionists, if you
please, in China--and of China itself, for none of them has any faith in
this educating of natives and making them your equals. Only down below
the line, in New Zealand and Australia, far from where it can really
affect Japan, is that experiment being carried on. And more than all
else, when Japanese imperialism is spreading its wings, when Japanese
bureaucracy is throwing out its chest in pride and telling its poor,
impoverished people, "See what I am doing for YOU," we need that serum
station in the Philippines where a solution of democracy and freedom
may continue to be made,--be it ever so weak.
And it needs to be injected into Japan. Some of it is already working in
that empire. Japan needs more, it needs to be reinforced. Democracy in
Japan is struggling for a foothold. Let the germs of democracy persist
in the Philippines and be rushed to the island empire. And let America
stand as a great moral force, impressing upon Japan that the rights of
the people shall not be suppressed. But that will never be unless the
people in America who stand for liberalism, for true democracy, for all
that America has hitherto meant wake up to the seriousness of the
situation in the Far East and cease to turn from it with sentimental
notions about Lafcadio Hearn's Japan. There are two Japans.
Both of these Japans are watching America closely. They are watching the
actions of America in the Philippines, they are following in the
footsteps of America in China. That need not be taken too literally, for
there are two meanings to it. One example points in one direction,
another in another. But one or two by way of illustration will do.
When America returned the Boxer Indemnity Funds to China for educational
purposes a new precedent was established in international affairs. No
other nation had the moral courage to follow suit. But just at the close
of the war, Japan, having replenished her exchequer considerably,
unloosened her purse-strings and returned the balance of the indemnity
funds to China. It was a case of thrifty self-denial, a tardy giving
back of gold that none of the powers were really entitled to. As
misguided and foolish as the Boxer Uprising was, still had it been a
little better organized, none of the evils from which China is suffering
to-day would obtain. China should have been as wise in her method as she
was in impulse. However, it is good to see Japan doing so much. She
should be encouraged.
Again, seeing that American missionaries--and others--are influencing
China in the direction of Occidental culture, Japan is following suit.
Here it is likewise a tardy giving back to China what Japan took from
her centuries ago, for Japanese Buddhism is only the sifting of the
Buddhism that made its way from India by way of China and Korea. Still,
it is worth noting that intellectual and moral precedents are often as
forceful as more materialistic weapons.
Observing the influence that doctors and hospitals wield in China,--the
Rockefeller Foundation, for instance,--the Japanese are following suit
and establishing hospitals in the interior. Educational and industrial
work likewise will lead the way for educational and industrial work by
Japanese in China. Witnessing the force of friendship in America's
relations with China, the public in Japan is protesting against the
antagonizing of this gigantic neighbor to whom the Japanese bureaucratic
wolf has been making such grandmotherly pretentions. And indeed there is
much good reason for the protest, for the Japanese merchant who expected
so much juice in that Chinese plum found that because of antagonism,
because of the rape of Shantung, the plum momentarily became a lemon, to
use a vulgar expression. Japan, after the "peace" Conference
contemptuously handed over what didn't belong to it but a duped
assistant in the prosecution of the war against Germany learned that
there are more ways than one of killing a cat. And China proceeded to
gnaw at the vitals of the Japanese bureaucratic wolf in a most telling
fashion. China declared a boycott of Japanese goods that was so
effective that it brought about a financial slump in Japan from which
she is not yet fully recovered. China was of course forced to yield. One
cannot live on sentiment, and when Japanese goods are the nearest and
cheapest at hand, what could China do?
If only Japan could see the real significance of this she would at once
withdraw all her nefarious demands on China, proceed sincerely and
honestly to win the friendship of China, and then undermine the very
ground of every foreign trader because of her propinquity. But
bureaucrats are blind. They are moles that move underground. The ground
of China is all broken up on that account. One of these days the Chinese
giant will clumsily step, not in the wake of the mole, but on the mole
itself. Inadvertently, of course; giants are such clumsy things!
4
These, then, are some of the ways in which Japan has and has not
followed in the footsteps of America.
Let us follow the Chinese giant a bit, and see what blundering paths he
has pursued. Unfortunately, he has had his mind too much on the American
colossus to observe the mole. And so he blundered into accepting a
republican form of government. A vain _Malvolio_, he thought he was
being honored with blue and yellow ribbons on his enormous legs, but to
stretch the metaphor a little farther, it turns out that these alien
Lilliputians are strapping him securely down to earth. The ribbons and
the Lilliputian bands are the foreign-built and foreign-controlled and
operated railroads which have been talked of with sanctimonious
metaphors to make them palatable. And now China parades herself before
the world as a republic. That is some of the influence of America. The
Republic of China is our own handiwork. Is it anything to be proud of?
Poor China is a battered republic, with hands outstretched, appealing to
us for help. As I write the newspapers tell of the appeal of Dr. Sun
Yat-sen, recently elected President of the South China Republic. After
surveying what he regards as the situation, exposing the Peking
government, declaring that but for its intriguing with Japan there would
have been unity between North and South, and that the Northern
militarists were profiteering in food during the recent famine, and
charging them with a string of other crimes, he adds:
Such is the state of affairs in China that unless America, her
traditional friend and supporter, comes forward to lend a helping
hand in this critical period, we would be compelled against our
will to submit to the twenty-one demands of Japan. I make this
special appeal, therefore, through Your Excellency, to the
Government of the United States to save China once more, for it is
through America's genuine friendship, as exemplified by the John
Hay doctrine, that China owes her existence as a nation.
Now let us listen to the word from Japan on American diplomacy in China.
The "Asahi Shimbun" said:
Of all the foreign representatives in Peking the American was the
least known previous to the revolution. A lawyer by profession, he
was not credited with any diplomatic ability or resource. Yet he
will reap more credit than any of the others on account of the
ability and energy which he has displayed. But what have our
Government and our diplomacy done to counteract the American
influence? Our interests in China far exceed those of any other
country, and yet our officials have allowed themselves to be
outplayed by a diplomatically untrained lawyer. China, which ought
to look to Japan for help and guidance, does not do so, but looks
to America. The inertia of the Kasumigaseki has given Mr. Calhoun
an opportunity to restore American prestige in the neighbouring
country.
Japan has done nothing to gain the good-will of China, and America is
constantly veering her ship with its treasury of Chinese good-will more
and more in the direction of Japan. We had in Japan a man of unusual
gifts and sagacity. Mr. Roland S. Morris, American Ambassador under the
Wilson administration, though avowedly a friend of Japan, certainly had
a most unenviable position to maintain. He seemed peculiarly fitted for
his post, for during his years in Japan, notwithstanding the innumerable
missions that moved like settings on a circular stage, and the infinite
number of dinners that fall to the lot of distinguished foreigners in
Japan, he never seems to have got political indigestion. And doubtless
he is to-day a friend of China.
With an eye to the "special interests" of Japan, Dr. Paul S. Reinsch was
permitted to throw up his hands in despair. We were not doing much to
save China from being Shantung-ed. Because Mr. Crane once
undiplomatically expressed himself in ways unwelcome to Japan, he was
recalled before he got beyond Chicago. Several years later, Mr. Crane
succeeded in smuggling himself through to China as American Minister,
and as far as may be seen, he did noble work in connection with the
Famine Relief last winter. Now we have dispatched a Japanophile to
China. Dr. Jacob Gould Shurman was so strongly impressed with the
schools of Japan that he gave up Cornell University to go to China and
help Japanize the Celestial. At least, that is the mood in which he left
America. A man who knows him well and is close to the inner circle of
American financial affairs in China assured me the other day that
Shurman would not be in China six months before he would completely
reverse his sentiments, and regard Japan's work in China as it is
regarded by every one there who is not a Japanese official.
Poor deluded, short-sighted Japan! She could have China as a plaything
if she only went about it properly. Propinquity could put special
interests in last year's list of bad debts if Japan sincerely, honestly,
firmly made a friend of China, threw the doors wide open,--and then
laughed a hearty, healthy laugh at the efforts of white men to outwit
her in Asia. Propinquity has made Japan Oriental, it has given Japan a
script that opens the doors for her more than for any other alien:
Oriental methods, Oriental concepts, Oriental customs and requirements
give Japan a better chance in China than all her millions of soldiers
and dreadnaughts ever will. Yet the little mole loves it underground.
5
Thus we are blindly following the Japanese mole. We are catering to
Japanese "sensitiveness" by sending diplomats with a list in the
direction of Japan now. Presently, I presume, we shall withdraw our
diplomats from China as we did from Korea, and forget about it. But,
then, of course, we sha'n't. Things in the Far East are not going to pan
out so easily, not in the matter of China and Japan. Ever since the
first American clipper flirted with Chinese trade, American interests
have been involved in the interests of China, and they will continue to
be so involved. Without ordinary, decent, honest trade among nations,
the relationship of peoples ceases to have its reason for existence.
Just imagine a world of nothing but tourists! But decent trade is not
the forcing of opium on a country against its will, as Britain forced it
on China in the early days and as Japan forces it to-day. Decent trade
is not the impoverishing of native industries by the introduction of
cheap products from Japanese, European, and American factories. Neither
is decent trade altruism. The spirit of really decent trade may be
found, though not yet fully defined, in the motives behind the
consortium; but, then, that scheme has not yet been proved workable. Its
future remains to be seen, and I shall later describe it as far as it
has gone.
It has been admitted, even by the most prejudiced--and by Japanese--that
America's practices in the Far East, and China in particular, have been
essentially well-principled. The Philippines are restively seeking
independence, but they cannot claim that America's protectorate has been
discreditable. One could go on all the way through to the return of the
Boxer Indemnity, and the only serious charge that can be made with truth
is that altruism has often been accompanied by indecision and
inefficiency.
The question that now faces the world is whether the effect of Western
democratic governmental methods, which seem to have made a sudden, yet
vital, impression on the minds of the Chinese, shall become effective
with time, or shall be uprooted by another Oriental country for whom we
have expressed constantly the most affectionate regard. We do not love
a child less because it needs correction; correction, we realize, is the
necessary accompaniment of growth. Japan needs to be shown the error of
her ways; not in high-flown moral terms, but in just plain, everyday
examples of the impracticability of her doings in China. Thus, having
been instrumental in the opening of Japan to the world; having acquired
possessions in the Pacific which must remain the outposts of democratic
management of native peoples; having set an example of disinterested,
generous treatment of unwieldy China; having stood by as her friend, as
her preceptor, her sponsor; having, in a word, made that inexplicable
journey from the Atlantic to the farthest reaches of the Pacific, let
the robin say of Johnny Appleseed:
To the farthest West he has followed the sun,
His life and his empire just begun....