Asia in Americanization.

1. The Race-Problem of the New World.

To the student of economic history and sociology the immigration problem of North and South America is of profound scientific interest. For, the peopling of the New Hemisphere by the children of the Old World since the days of Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers is but the latest stage of the same world-movement of which the previous phases are embodied in the settlement of Celtic and Roman Europe by the Franks, Goths, Vandals, Huns, Angles, and Saxons, or the still earlier colonizing of ancient Eur-Asia by the members of the Indo-Germanic (Aryan) family, viz., Greeks, Romans, Persians, Hindus, etc., or the valley of the Hwang-ho by the Scythians (Tartars) of Central Asia, the Mesopotamian Doab by the Dravidians of Southern India, and the "gift of the Nile" by the pharaonic invaders from the hills of Nubia and Eastern Africa.

The problem of race-fusion in present-day America is essentially identical with the race-problems in other ages and climes. There are, however, two significant differences. In the first place, what has been accomplished in Asia and Europe through centuries and even millenniums is being effected in America in generations, if not in decades. And in the second place, the solution of the problem is being attempted in the New World much more consciously than in the Old, thanks to the cumulative experience of humanity, and thanks to the marvelous power with which modern science has endowed mankind to conduct experiments, to forecast the future, to select the desirables, to reject the undesirables.

It is this conscious and deliberate creation of new men and women out of the old human material within the shortest possible time that imparts to the American phase of the age-long process of race-mobilizations a distinctive character; and this is the function of Americanization.

The problem may be easily stated. The New World must derive its raw flesh and blood from the Old. The object, however, is neither to relieve Europe and Asia of their over-population and poverty, nor as the idealists would assert, to afford the scum of humanity a chance to rise in the scale of civilization. These, no doubt, are the "by-products" of immigration. But first and last, the aim naturally is national, i. e., to serve "America first". The considerations that count most are: first, to have an adequate supply of hands for the farms, factories, forests and mines of America; secondly, to build up communities of men and women who could enrich in diverse ways the social and intellectual make-up of American life, and last but not least, to create a body of citizens with whom loyalty to America in times of distress and war would be but a second nature. These are the foundations of the minimum program of Americanization that lies before the educators, social workers and political leaders of the United States.

2. America's Ultimatum to Asia.

So far as the Americanization of immigrants from Asia is concerned the problem has ceased to exist. The New Worlders do not want to Americanize the Asian laborers. The men, women and children of the Orient have been postulated to be "unassimilable" before anything was attempted in the way of "adopting," naturalizing, assimilating or amalgamating them.

The question has now practically been closed by treaties and legislation. To a certain extent the attitude of the employers of labor was different from that of the laborers. But, on the whole, the verdict of the United States as of Canada was the exclusion of Asian labor-force from the right of setting foot on the soil of the New Hemisphere. And so America has finally declared herself to be a forbidden land to the Oriental peoples.

The closing of Canada¹ to the laborers of Asia has been effected: (1) by the Chinese Exclusion Law of 1903-1908, which demands of every immigrant of the Chinese race a landing tax of $500; (2) by the informal Japanese-Canadian agreement (1907), which limits Japanese immigrants in Canada to 400 persons a year, and (3) by the landing-tax of $200 on every Hindu immigrant, as well as by the regulation (1910) of "continuous journey" from India (a prohibitive ruling because there is no direct steamship route between India and Canada).

The United States has been closed² to Asian labor by the following measures: (1) The Chinese Exclusion Law of 1904, which re-enacted without limitation, modification or condition all the previous suspension or restriction laws relating to the immigration of laborers, skilled or unskilled, from China; (2) the "gentlemen's agreement" of 1907, by which Japan has bound herself to grant passports to no laborers except such as are "former residents, parents, wives or children of residents," and "settled agriculturists;" and (3) the sweepingly restrictive Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, which has unconditionally forbidden the immigration of laborers from Asia (minus China and Japan, provided against separately) by latitude and longitude.

In the policy of exclusion the United States has thus been less indirect and more thorough than her northern neighbour. And this has allayed the unrest of labor-unions and their journalists and politicians. It is obvious, however, that the employers of labor have been considerably hurt by these measures, for they have been deprived of man-power especially at a time when labor shortage is being felt on all sides because of the demand of the Great War for "human bullets."

But this apparently satisfactory "settlement" of the Oriental question is so drastic, inhuman, discriminative (and hence unjust) that it bids fair to be the most acute disturber of the world's peace in the coming decades. It is America's ultimatum to the Orient. The problem has thus passed beyond the limits of a merely local labor-legislation or "domestic" industrial dispute into the arena of international politics. For, the present situation is virtually a standing challenge to Young Asia to venture on opening the doors of America in the same manner in which China and Japan were opened by the Eur-Americans during the middle of the nineteenth century. This affront is constantly provoking the humiliated and embittered Asians to demonstrate to the world that the edge of the Damascus blades has not been dulled for good.

3. The Oriental Factor in the Immigrant Population.

During the period from July 1900 to March 1909 Canada admitted altogether 1,244,597 immigrants of all nationalities. The Oriental element in the immigration between 1901 and 1909 is represented by the following figures: Chinese, 3,890; Hindu, 5,185; Japanese, 12,420. The number of Asians during this period was thus only 21,495, i.e. about one fifty-eighth or less than 2 per cent of the total arrivals.³

The present immigrant population of the United States, is, roughly speaking 34,000,000 (adults 15,000,000, children 19,000,000). This is about one-third of the total population (whites and negroes). Of this the number of foreign-born whites over twenty-one who cannot speak English is approximately 3,000,000.

The Asian factor in the immigration that has. produced this vast foreign population is infinitesimally small. It was less than 3 per cent in 1910. Even at its height (between 1871 and 1880) it was less than 6 per cent. The total arrival from entire Asia between 1821 and 1903 amounted to 421,190, i.e., 2.06 per cent of the whole immigration.⁴ The percentages of Asian immigration (including 100,000 Levantines of Turkey in Asia, Syrians, Armenians, Arabs and Turks) on the basis of the total admitted from all races are given in the following schedule from the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration (1906):

From 1901 to 1910 the total arrival was 8,795,386. Of this only 243,567, i.e., about 2.7 per cent represented the immigration from all Asia. According to the Thirteenth Census of the United States (vol. i, p. 781) the Asia-born population in 1910 was counted at 191,484 and the Europe-born at 11,791,841. Asia furnished 1.4 per cent of the foreign-born population and Europe 87.2 per cent. For 1900 the figure for Asia had been 120,248 and for Europe 8,871,780, and the percentages 1.2 per cent and 85.8 per cent respectively.

Let us study the figures in detail and by race. The number of Hindu laborers in the United States was never large. In 1909 the figure was 337, in 1909-10, 1782. In 1913 the entire bulk of Hindus ("immigrants" proper as well as merchants, students and travellers) amounted to about 5000 persons. From 1911 to 1916 the total arrivals gave the figure 1372. The following statistics speak for previous years: 1906, 271; 1907, 1,072; 1908, 1,710.

The Hindu element in the Asian immigration did not rise to conspicuous proportions, and since the mobilization of labor from India to the United States began as late as 1906 it could not influence American conditions to any appreciable extent. The legislation of 1917 has disposed of the Hindu laborers before they became a real "problem".⁵

In 1910 Japanese in the United States numbered 72,157, and in 1913 about 95,000. The immigration down to 1898 never comprised batches of more than 2000 a year. From 1891 to 1900 the total arrival was 26,855 and from 1901 to 1910 129,797. The movement began practically in 1885 when emigration was first legalized by Japan. It is well known that from 1638 to 1868 the Japanese government did not allow any of its citizens to cross the "dark waters" under penalty of death.⁶

Chinese immigration was longer in duration and larger in volume than Japanese or Hindu. But it never rose as high as 5 per cent of the total immigration. The number of Chinese in the United States never reached 150,000 at any one time, and only once rose above 110,000. During the thirty-two years of "free" immigration (1848-1880) the number of immigrants from China never rose above 20,000 a year; nor averaged for any decade more than 14,000 per year. From the first Exclusion Act of 1882 the arrival down to 1910 was 105,482. From 1820 to 1910 China's contribution totaled 334,426. Deducting the departures, the number of Chinese in the United States in 1910 was 73,531, and in 1916 about 60,000.⁷

But from 1881 to 1910 a portion of the "new immigration" (i.e., that from Southern and Eastern Europe) amounted to over eight millions and a half: Austro-Hungarians, 3,096,032; Italians, 3,008,920; Russians, 2,456,097. The volume was thus more than 81 times that from China for the same period. For 1899-1908 the total Slavic immigration alone was 1,687,199, i.e., about sixteen times the Chinese immigration of three decades. During one decade 1891-1900 Russia alone supplied to the United States 593,703, i.e., about double the number that China contributed in ninety years (1820-1910). From 1901 to 1910 the "new immigration" was measured at 65.9 per cent of the total arrivals in the United States. The percentage has been steadily on the increase. It was about 75 per cent at the beginning of the Great War (1914).⁸

4. The Basis of Discrimination.

It is evident that the waves of Asian invasion did not assume any formidable magnitude. And yet prohibitive special legislation has been enacted by America to put an absolute stop to the tide of immigration from China, Japan and India. It is evident also that the United States has no objection to supplying its labor market with men, women and children from the villages of Portugal, Spain, Sicily, South Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Galicia, Bohemia, Lithuania and Russia, not to speak of the northern countries of Teutonic Europe.

Is there anything in the causes of migration that tempts America to be more favorable to Europe than to Asia? The point would be clear if we analyze the forces behind the mobilization of labor.

The historic migrations of ancient and medieval times took the form chiefly of military usurpations, political annexations, tribal settlements, or racial "colonizations." The Aryan immigrations into Greece and India, the Tartar invasions of China, and the "barbarian" inroads into the Roman Empire are instances of such mobilizations of warrior hordes seeking "a local habitation and a name." The processes by which the Red-Indians, the Aztecs and the Incas were exterminated by the Christians of the colonial period in order to make room for the races of the Old World are likewise of the same category. But surely the immigration into Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, etc., during the last 150 years is not at all of that warlike character.

There is a vague idea abroad that America has been peopled by the political refugees, liberators and revolutionaries, who found autocratic and conservative Europe too hot for their propaganda. It is also thoughtlessly believed sometimes that the New World has enlarged its numbers mainly by granting asylum to the men and women who escaped from the religious persecution and horrors of intolerance rampant on the other side of the Atlantic. The political disturbances in Europe of 1830 and 1848, and the earlier Puritan and Huguenot revolutions have no doubt influenced the American population both in quality and quantity. But, as a rule, both these notions are statistically untenable. In recent years especially, except in the case of a certain number of Jews and Poles (and this again for very limited periods) political and religious oppression may be practically ignored as a source of emigration from Europe. Besides, the Lafayette, the Kosciuskos, the Frederick Lists, the Kossuths, those apostles of freedom and emancipators of subject peoples, belong to the intellectual middle class; and even though temporarily ill-financed and impoverished they are not counted among that immigrant mass which has to be handled at Ellis Island and Angell Island.

There is but one grand cause of the movements en masse from one land to another; and that is economic, the pressure of population on the means of subsistence. This Malthusian motive underlies even the earlier migrations of a military character by which Asia, Europe and Colonial America were settled during different periods of history. It is the force, the greatest single cause, that has impelled Europe in the nineteenth century and after to unburden herself of her teeming millions and send them forth as seekers of gold dust to the mines, oilfields, ranches and workshops of the Eldorado of the world. It is the same economic urge that is pushing Asia to the under-peopled banks of the Amazon and the Mississippi.

The New Worlders have chosen to be hospitable to the hungry folks from Europe, but when Asia is at the door crying for bread they have grimly determined to offer only stones. Of course they are perfectly within their rights when they manipulate their turnpikes according to their own discrimination, admitting some, refusing others. With their machine-guns, airplanes, "tanks" and submarines, and now militarized and navalized as they are to the n^th term of their man-power, they are not certainly in the plight of the original inhabitants of America, the Peruvians or Mexicans; and presumably they do not fear the appearance of Pizarro or Cortez from the Asia of the twentieth century. But as the project of world's peace on permanent foudations is emphatically proclaimed from house-tops in these days, Young Asia deems it within its province to argue out the basis of discrimination on which America has embarked upon the exclusion of Orientals.

In what respects, then, are the laborers of the Orient less desirable as prospective American workmen and citizens than the immigrants from Europe? Are the conditions of American agriculture, manufacture and transportation more peculiarly suited to the habits of life, "genius" and temperament of the European masses than to those of the Asian laboring classes? Can the native and long-naturalized laborers of America point to a single economic or social feature in which, say, the Slavs or Latins of Eastern and Southern Europe are, under natural conditions, more conveniently situated with regard to the domicile in the United States than are the Caucasian (Aryan) Hindus,⁹ Mongolo-Tartar, Chinese, and Malaya-Mongoloid Japanese? These are the interpellations by Young Asia that await answer from the economists, ethnologists, labor-protagonists and legislators of America. And the same queries may be legitimately raised by the American capitalists and employer classes in their stand against the labor-view of the Oriental immigration.

5. Asians vs. Latins and Slavs.

We would, therefore, make out a qualitative inventory of the stuff that the United States is anxious to Americanize.

Among the "new immigrants" in American industries, on the average, 74.8 per cent could not read and write. According to the Abstract of Immigration Commission's Report (1907-1910) on "Immigrants in Manufacture and Mining" (p. 211) 91 per cent were illiterates among Magyars, 87.5 per cent among Slovenians, 84.4 per cent among Slovaks, 82.6 per cent among Roumanians, 80.5 per cent among Greeks, 79.9 per cent among Poles, 78.1 per cent among Bulgarians, 77.3 per cent among Lithuanians, 74.5 per cent among Russians, 71.3 per cent among Serbians, 70.9 per cent among Croatians, 67.5 per cent among South Italians, 65.8 per cent among Syrians, and 47.5 per cent among Portuguese.¹⁰

What, now, is the tradition of economic life to which these immigrants had been used for centuries in southern and eastern Europe? As a rule, the Jews constituted the middle class in their European homes. They had been more urban than rural, as Joseph points out in the Jewish Immigration to the United States, and had possessed almost a monopolistic control over the industry, commerce, and banking of the communities. The rest of the "new immigration," however, has invariably consisted in the main of the peasant classes, agricultural hands and unskilled laborers.

The cultivators of Russia, Roumania or Galicia had never heard of steam gang-plows that break up a hundred acres in a day or two. Theirs were the implements that the Babylonians had worked with millenniums ago, and that have been partially displaced only yesterday by the "industrial revolution" in the more advanced countries of the world. Tchechs, Slovaks and Serbs used wooden utensils in the stall and the house. Their technology furnished them only with the primitive fork, rake and plough. In their estimation human labor was cheaper than any labor-saving instrument. It could be had, in fact, almost for nothing. Clark mentions in the Old Homes of New Americans the story of a Bohemian peasant who condemned the extravagance of a farmer because of his erecting a fence around his pasture instead of having a man to watch his sheep and a girl to watch his geese. The economic life under the most favorable circumstances was not unlike that of the "peasant proprietors" described by Arthur Young in the eighteenth century. There was "variety of work," as Professor Emily Balch observes in Our Slavic Fellow-citizens, employment indoors alternating with field work. Men, women and children "coöperated" in the tending of chickens, geese and ducks in the perspective of "gardens with their rows of tall sun-flowers and poppies."

The primitivism in husbandry might at its best suggest indeed of Theocritean idylls. But one must not miss the dark cloud in the silver lining. These arcadias were nests of appalling poverty. Lord noticed in Italy the proverbial destitution of the famished Irishman, thousands of weary straw-plaiters earning "four cents a day," and thousand others who dip in the water of a spring or rivulet a handful of leaves or a few fresh beanpods to be eaten as salad with their dry hard bread.¹¹ And the Greek peasant, as Professor Ross puts it so graphically in The Old World in the New,"¹² lived on greens fried in olive oil, ate "meat three times a year," and kept "without noticing it the 150 fasting days in the Greek calendar." The cooking of Austro-Hungarian Slavs was done in earthenware vessels on primitive ovens, and their houses were furnished with products of the spinning wheel, needle and dyepot. The standard of life governing such communities is obvious. It was mud floors, vegetarianism (not the cult of faddists, of course, but the virtue of a necessity), no underwear.

The village was the center of their social existence; their outlook embraced only the petty concerns of the neighbourhood. Civic sense was the furthest removed from their consciousness. "When the Italian pays his 2 or 3 per cent to the government, he says: it has gone to the king."¹³ Servility was ingrained in their physiology. The Slav peasant automatically took off his cap to those dressed like gentle-folk, known or unknown.¹⁴ Individuality was not dreamed of in domestic life. Among the Croatians the young men and women were not accustomed to choosing their mates for themselves, the marriage being arranged by parents or guardians. It was the fear from the demons in the elements that nourished their religion. The Franciscan friars, writes Brandenburgh,¹⁵ beg money at Naples from Italian emigrants by saying that "they would ward off the fearful dangers of the voyage and in the new wild land America by purchasing prayer-cards." And undoubtedly they were as innocent of the problems of child labor, newspapers, trade unions, bank accounts and birth control as is the man in the moon.

This is the cultural outfit of immigrants from the European hive of humanity. Altogether, then, the migration from southern and eastern Europe to America has reproduced, on continental scale, the exact process by which the "deserted villages" of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century became instrumental in the urbanization and industrialization of England, France and Germany. It is a step in the transformation of the entire world from the feudal to the "industrial" regime, from the lower to the higher standard of "necessaries, comforts and decencies of life." It is carrying forward the dynamics of economic history that was first operated by the application of the steam-engine to cotton-manufacture in 1785.

To America, therefore, these guests from Europe can but contribute their primitive midwifery, agricultural superstition, high birthrate, and rural ignorance. In American cities they make their presence felt by room and clothing that reek with odors of cooking and filth. Like Bohemians in the country towns of Texas they. displace old American settlers from their favorite habitations. Jews are shunned by "Americans" because they eat garlic; Greeks because they are mere barbers and dirty shoe-shiners; Italian fruiterers because they come from Naples, the city of rogues and rascals, or because their women are notorious for cat-like fecundity; and Slavs because, as Kuokol writes in Wage Earning in Pittsburg, of their rows and fights when they get drunk on pay-day or when celebrating a wedding or christening. These are the people that are easily duped by the "managers" of political parties, and materially help lowering the level of public life. They can be handled without trouble by employers and captains of industry, and are pounced upon by. capitalists to be exploited as tools in the breaking of strikes. They thus militate against the effectiveness of workingmen's associations. They spoil the labor market and demoralize the proletariat class. In all respects they embody an enormous drag and dead weight upon America's advance in civilization, democracy, and efficiency.¹⁶

Such is the raw material that the United States is eager to wash, scrape, chisel and polish, to assimilate, to manufacture 100 per cent Americans of. If these specimens of humanity be worth a nation's spending millions on, how can the unprejudiced mind be indifferent to the potentialities of those other human beings of the same socio-economic standing that come from across the Pacific? Does hunger affect the muscular organism and the nervous system of men and women differently in the East and the West? Is primitive agriculture the parent of worse poverty and lower standard of material existence in Asia than in Europe? Are the illiteracy and superstition of the white cultivators better adapted to the democratic institutions and labor organizations of republican America than are those of their yellow and brown peers? Or are the social and moral values of American life likely to deteriorate less through the influx of Occidental medievalism, nescience, boorishness and serfdom than through that of the Oriental? Young Asia wonders as to how it is possible for the brain of America to make a choice between Europe and Asia "under the same conditions of temperature and pressure."

6. Persecution of Asians in America.

No new objection can be urged against Asian immigrants from the viewpoint of labor, sanitation, morals, or culture in addition to what is valid against the "new immigration." Intellectually economically, and politically, the Americanizability of the unskilled laborers from Asia is on a par with, not a whit less than, that of those from Europe. The "pre-industrial" life with its medieval hygiene and civics does not qualify the Slav or the Latin for the duties of the American citizen in peace and war to a far greater extent than it does the Chinese, Japanese, and Hindu immigrants. As a matter of fact it need be admitted in all fairness that the prejudice of "Americans" against the "new immigration" is really as strong as against the Oriental. Emotionally speaking, it could not be otherwise.

But it is very remarkable that under the same "stimulus," viz., an equally keen anti-foreign race-feeling, the people as well as the government of the United States have "reacted" differently to the two groups of foreigners. The differential treatment of the Asian and the European immigrants in America is a striking fact of considerable importance to students of behavioristic social psychology

On the one hand, the patriotic Americanizers have been trying their best to abolish the "race lines," the "little Italy's," the "little Hungary's," etc., from their cities. They are thoroughly convinced, as they should be, that these "immigrant colonies," these clan-communities, these towns within towns, present the greatest hindrances to Americanization by perpetuating Old World traditions, customs and ways of thinking. Rightly, therefore, are they determined to do away with the segregations as far as practicable in order to assimilate the "new men, strange faces, other minds" from Europe. On the other hand, American behavior towards Asian immigrants has been the very antithesis of this attitude. The only method directly calculated to prevent fusion, amalgamation or even assimilation has been pursued in the treatment of Orientals. It is a story of systematic ostracism, localization, persecution and torture from beginning to end. Young Asia has at last been forced to realize, like the Jew in medieval Europe, that in this land of the free "sufferance is the badge of all our tribe."

The people of India have few specific grievances against America. On the whole, the treatment of Hindus in the United States has not been unsympathetic. And the anti-Hindu animosity of American laborers could not rise to a tragic intensity, because the Hindu labor movement was too short-lived and small in bulk to grow into a "nuisance." As Hindus have no government and flag of their own to protect their interests and sense of the dignity of man, the United States had no trouble in managing the situation. The American public turned a deaf ear to the half a dozen feeble protests from Hindu leaders in the States. The insolent conduct of the immigration officers at the ports, who make it a point to suspect and harass Hindu merchants, students, and travellers as laborers or "public charges" in posse, continues however to be a source of Young Asia's chagrin against America.

The first anti-Japanese propaganda was formally started in 1900, i.e., within about fifteen years of immigration from Japan. In 1905 Japanese had less than 100 children of school-going age scattered in different wards of San Francisco. But the School Board ordered them to be segregated in a separate Japanese school. The same year the State Legislature of California declared the marriage of whites with Mongolians (i.e., Japanese and Chinese) illegal and void. The "school problem" and the problem of miscegenation gradually led to the formation of the Asiatic Exclusion League. It was directed solely against Japan, for Chinese exclusion had already been legislated in 1904, and the Hindu labor-movement had hardly begun. The "gentlemen's agreement" of 1907 finally excluded Japanese laborers from America. Since then California and Arizona have passed Alien Land Laws (1913). These are discriminative exclusively against Japan. According to these laws leases of agricultural land by „other aliens" (i.e., those not eligible to citizenship, e.g., Japanese) are limited to three years, and ownership to the extent provided by existing treaties. The injustice of these laws would be apparent from the fact that subjects of the United States are accorded the same rights as other aliens by the land laws of Japan.¹⁷

During all this period Japanese have submitted to humiliating treatment¹⁸ in restaurants, lodging houses, hotels, moving picture shows, and theatres. Even the Y.M.C.A. has not hesitated to deny. them the use of gymnasiums, swimming tanks, athletic fields, etc. Japanese have been excluded from fraternal orders and trade unions. They have not been allowed to employ women as help. Members of the Japanese consulate have been compelled to leave the residences of their own liking because Americans of the neighbourhood prevented the grocery stores from supplying the "Jap" with provisions on threats of boycott. Add to these the unnoticed and unpunished assaults on Japanese in the streets of American cities, and the indignities suffered by high class Japanese on board American ships and at the ports of landing. After all this comprehensive de-Americanizing of "Mr. Jap" the intellectuals of America dare declare: "Orientals are unassimilable!"

7. Anti-Chinese "Pogroms" of the United States (1855-1905).

As Chinese immigration was the oldest and most voluminous of the labor-movement from Asia, the anti-Chinese antipathy of America was the most intense and monstrous. In fact, Japanese inherited the anti-Chinese prejudice, and Hindus the anti-Japanese in the chronological order of their arrival; as, in the psychology of American labor, the last immigrant is the worst. Japanese came to America about three years after the first Chinese exclusion law (1882) had been passed, and Hindus reached the Pacific Coast about the time when the anti-Japanese movement was finally drawing to a head (1905-1907).

In 1851, i.e., three years after the discovery of gold in Sacramento Valley there were about 25,000 Chinese in California. They were hailed by the Governor as "one of the most worthy of our newly adopted citizens." But in 1855 the Foreign Miner's License Tax was passed to push Chinese out of the mining fields. Since then for a whole half century the popular and governmental (state as well as federal) attitude of America towards Chinese was one of unvarnished iniquity and hypocrisy, as Prof. A. C. Coolidge admits in The United States as a World Power.¹⁹

Chinese had to pay special capitation tax, special police tax, special fishing license. In addition to this discriminative legislation the Chinese government had to accept in 1868 some of the objectionable terms of the Burlingame treaty which, however, was, on the whole, the only decent piece of transaction between America and China down to 1905. By this document China agreed to the denial of American citizenship to persons of the Chinese race. Nor is this all. The ballot was forbidden to Chinese living in America. Schools were closed against them. They were not allowed to give evidence on the witness stand even in cases affecting their own property. They suffered open torture in public places and residential quarters. In normal times it was "mob-law" that governed their person and property. The dictates of American demagogues created a veritable reign of terror for them. By 1876 the persecution of Chinese had become so chronic that the Six Companies at San Francisco had to lodge formal complaints to the proper authorities against the assaults and atrocities of Americans.²⁰

In 1880 an American commission was forced on the imperial government at Peking. By hook or by crook it compelled China to invest the United States with right and authority to modify the Burlingame treaty against Chinese interests, so that Americans might have the legal freedom to "regulate, limit or suspend Chinese immigration" at their own convenience. The first Chinese exclusion bill followed hard upon this in 1882. The American public was not to be satisfied yet. Violent outrages continued to be perpetrated on innocent Chinese men, women and children in the Western States. In 1885 and 1886 Chinese were stoned, mobbed, looted and murdered in Wyoming, Washington und California.²¹

By the treaties of 1868 and 1880 the "most favored nation" privileges had been mutually assured between China and the United States. The Chinese legation, therefore, requested the federal govern ment to respect the stipulations of those treaties and protect the life and possessions of Chinese living on American soil. Chang Yen Hoon, the Chinese minister demanded of the United States an indemnity of $276,619.75 for outrages on Chinese. The indemnity was not granted. Nor did the federal government care to redress the wrongs in any way.²² On the contrary, law after law was sanctioned in direct violation of treaties.

To this conduct of the United States stands in bold relief the behavior of China in regard to the carrying out of treaty stipulations. In 1858 the government of Peking had paid America an indemnity of $735,258.97. In subsequent years the Chinese Empire invariably paid indemnities to all foreign powers even to cover the losses outside "treaty ports" for which it was not legally responsible.²³ The cynic would probably remark that treaties are meant to be kept only by unarmed nations.

In 1888 by the Scott Act America cancelled the legitimate "return" certificates of 20,000 Chinese who had temporarily gone out of the United States on short trips. They were thus mercilessly deprived of their house and home without compensation. In 1892 Chinese were declared unbailable by the Geary Law. It enforced also the compulsory registration of every Chinese immigrant for purposes of identification. Under this ruling bona fide students from China have been marked and photographed in nude state. The immigration authorities have been pleased to violate the "most favored nation" clauses of treaties by thus indiscriminately applying the conditions for laborers to the "exempt" classes. And instances of wealthy Chinese merchants refused admittance into America or detained and maltreated in the immigrant-sheds at the ports on the suspicion that they might be laborers are only too frequent. The treatment of the officially invited Chinese exhibitors to the St. Louis exhibition (1904) was perhaps the most scandalous in this uniformly disgraceful history of America's relations with Chinese. This together with the Exclusion Law of 1904 was "the last straw that broke the camel's back." Half a century's high-handedness and atrocity at length prevailed with Young China to declare a boycott of American goods, ships, institutions, and missionaries in 1905; but political pressure from the aggressive Power compelled it to withdraw even this weapon of self-defence.²⁴

A tragedy also has its humorous side. Whenever the Chinese legation applied to Washington, D. C., to take note of the violation of treaties indulged in by the states or by their citizens and indemnify the Chinese for the losses sustained, the federal authorities used to take refuge under the peculiar constitution of the United States by which the "nation" is prevented from intervention in "state" affairs.²⁵ On several occasions, however, they have not had the courtesy to even acknowledge the thrice-repeated appeals and requests from the Chinese ministers. Rather, they have taken the liberty of administering pungent rebukes to the official representatives of China for not servilely accepting the wishes of America and trying to advance the Chinese view of the case in dignified and emphatic protests.

Is it surprising, therefore, that Young Asia should regard America's "inquisition" of China and her people as unparalleled in inhumanity in the modern annals of interracial relations except perhaps by the infamous partitions of Poland and the blood-curdling anti-Jewish "pogroms" in Russia? No wonder that in the United States Chinese are compelled to live in Chinatowns, the "ghettos" of the New World. And yet America's "scientific" students of the immigration problem have the face to glibly remark about the exclusiveness and unassimilability of Asians! Do they want Young Asia to understand that America's charity to the Chinese (1907), embodied as it is in the partial return of Boxer indemnity, is at once, an expiation for all her previous sins as well as a justification for her gagging the Chinese mouth until Doomsday?

8. The Crime of Colour.

As we have seen, the high-standard American laborer has socio-economic and cultural reasons for bearing prejudice against the Jew, the Italian, the Greek and the Slovak. The prejudice against the Asian laborer is presumably not at all different from this in kind or even in degree. During the early years of the discovery of gold on the Pacific Coast (1848-1852) American prejudice against Spaniards and Frenchmen also had been no less deep and bitter. Historically speaking, Chinese, the "new immigrants" of those days, only inherited the previous anti-Spanish and anti-French animosity of America.

A comparative study of all these immigrations brings out the important fact that the rationale of American prejudice is essentially the same in each case. It consists in the natural desire of the native workman to close the labor-market to foreign competitors. To the employers of labor, of course, the race of the laborer or his nationality is of no special significance. They care mainly for the "hands," no matter whose.

But why is it that the identical anti-foreign sentiment of the labor unions has not led to identical anti-foreign propaganda and anti-foreign legislation? Why is it that one group of foreigners is isolated, tortured, and legislated out of the country, while at the same time there are deliberate efforts to educate, adopt and assimilate another group of equally (if not more) obnoxious "Dagoes?" How are we to explain that there has been proposed no definitively Slavic exclusion or Jewish exclusion law in the United States? How is it possible for the collective mind of a nation to discriminate between two communities of the same mentality, same economic status, and same socio-civic outlook?

The reason is not to be sought in the religious difference between Asia and Europe. For the states as well as the federal government tolerate every "ism" on earth from mariolatry, transubstantiation and immaculate conception to Mormonism, Christian Science and free thinking. Besides, in modern times, the laboring classes are not, as a rule, fanatical enough to examine people's articles of faith before entering on social intercourse. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, as such, are not balanced against Christianity or Judaism in the mind of the masses in the twentieth century.

Do the physical features, the physiognomic expressions, then. account for the differential treatment of the Asian and European immigrants by the laborers and their leaders in America? One might be tempted to say "Yes." But, humanly speaking, native Americans themselves are too often familiar with the accidents of embryology to demand an ideal grace of line and proportion of limbs as the sine qua non of friendships, unions or communal gatherings. And surely their aesthetic repugnance is not daily aroused by every instance of deviation from the anthropometrically perfect cephalic index or by every aberration from the Venus of Melos type.

What, in the last analysis, is the fundamental differentium between the Asian laborer and the European laborer? The Asian is yellow and brown, the European is albino, i. e., colourless or white. It is the complexion of the skin that is ultimately responsible for the exclusion of Asia from the labor market of America. It seems almost ridiculous that so much should depend on so slight distinctions.

Race-prejudice, especially as it has developed in the United States, is at bottom practically tantamount to skin-prejudice. According to humanitarians this may indeed be a regrettable phenomenon, but as long as it exists it is impolitic to be blind to the fact or minimize its social significance and explain it away by ethnological investigations. It is an open question, moreover, if colour-prejudice or race-prejudice in any of its forms is ever likely to disappear from the human world. Until, however, the prejudice is removed or modified and mitigated by conscious educational and social service agencies, it is reasonable to recognize that the anti-Asian animus of America would remain a most powerful casus belli between the East and the West. It behooves the American captains of industry, and entrepreneurs, therefore, in the interest of the world's peace to reopen the question of Oriental immigration and have the "assimilability" of Asian laborers studied by economists and sociologists on less prejudiced and more equitable grounds.²⁶

Like Europe the United States has not yet had the time and "preparedness" enough to display excessive land-hunger or market-quest, or zeal for the exploitation of weaker peoples in extra-American territories. But the persecution to which innocent Orientals have been exposed in America without redress from the legally constituted authorities, and the humiliation meted out by the authorities themselves in the shape of laws and agreements are convincing evidences that America and Europe are birds of a feather so far as aggression is concerned. In Young Asia's political psychology, therefore, the ultimatum of American labor to the Orient for the "crime of colour" affords the same stimulus to vindictive will and intelligence as does the steady annihilation of enslaved and semi-subject races by the dominant European Powers and the notorious postulate of the "white man's burden" that pervades the intellectuals, journalists, university circles and "upper ten thousands" of Eur-America.

In primitive times the world's peace was disturbed by incidents like the rape of Helen or of Sita. In the Middle Ages religious fanaticism added fuel to the fire of the normal tiger-instincts in man. The other day the great armageddon was advertized as being fought over the alleged violation of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania. But all through the ages territorial expansion, dynastic prestige, commercial monopoly, military renown of digvijaya (con quest of the quarters), and so forth, have dictated the call to arms. Now that there remains no more of land, water, and air to be seized except possibly on Mars, the peace of the world is being recklessly staked by the aggressive races on the colour of the skin. It is in this way that the organic struggle for self-assertion maintains its continuity by changing its camouflage and ostensible motive from generation to generation, and that might establishes its historic right to rule mankind. Young Asia is fully conscious of the situation, and has been preparing itself to contribute to the grand cosmic evolution from its own angle of vision.

For the present, Asia's retaliation may easily take the form of an economic boycott of the United States. It is unfortunate that Americans should have lost the moral hold on the Orient when they can least afford to do without it. In and through the Great War there has been sung the swan-song of the Monroe Doctrine and America's policy of isolation. Her provincialism is already a matter of history. Already the financial center of gravity of the world has been shifted to New York. The American merchant marine has been expanding at an enormous rate under our very eyes. And with its power and serviceability immensely multiplied by the Panama Canal, Uncle Sam promises to be the inter-continental transportation agency of nations. Besides, during the last two decades American capital has more than doubled itself. What through manufactures, what through shipping, and what through bullion the United States today is in the greatest need of expansion, an enlarged horizon, an empire of foreign commerce and culture, a world-penetration all along the line. Is it expedient for America to have a discontented Asia to reckon with now, in view of the fact that the possibilities of the Orient as a paying field for American enterprise cannot be overlooked even by those to whom Latin America is looming large? The crisis is a challenge to the intellect and prudence of the United States. A monumental world-problem is hanging on the capacity of the American brain to rise to the height of the occasion and bring about a fair adjustment between the claims of Young Asia and the right of the United States legislature, from the platform of interracial justice and good-will.²⁷

9. Americanism in the New Asia.

America's place in Asian consciousness is not, however, all conditioned by her treatment of the Oriental immigration question. Asia's reactions to the immigration policy of the United States are not therefore the exclusive factors determining Oriental-American relations.

Not only China and India but even Japan have on the whole nothing but the warmest feelings for the people, institutions and movements in the United States. America has succeeded in winning the heart of Asia simply because of her traditional love of freedom and democracy as well as her innate open-mindedness and receptivity to new ideas. Whatever might be the diplomatic manoeuvrings behind the Conference at Washington (1921) which was designed to straighten out some of the new international problems that have appeared all over the world since the Armistice (November 11, 1918) and which in fact was but a continuation of and appendix or corrective to the hastily manipulated and ill-digested Congress of Versailles, and howsoever formal or meaningless might be the declarations in regard to China's sovereignty or to the diminution of armaments, Young Asia cannot afford to think of any international grouping for its oppressed peoples without counting upon the United States as its inevitably the first and foremost advocate and supporter.

Although the United States has helped the imperialistic nations of Europe to maintain and expand their dependencies in Asia as the chief result of the war, it was paradoxically enough during the war that America's name became a household word in Asia as the friend of freedom for peoples who are still subject to foreign nations. It may be remarked that the greatest change in Asian political mentality, — and the greatest diplomatic revolution in the Asian status quo which is becoming more and more established—was brought about by America's entrance and effective participation in the war.

As America took a definitive stand the politics of the war assumed a new character. So much so, indeed, that the war of 1917-18 was almost a different war from that of 1914 in so far at least as Asian idealism was concerned. This phenomenal, almost mystical transformation was engendered by certain shibboleths which President Wilson had the cleverness to exploit from the new vocabulary coined by Bolshevik Russia. Such shibboleths were found in the doctrine of self-determination.

And if Wilson took advantage of Bolshevism, Young Asia took advantage of Wilson in a manner which was the least suspected by himself. Whether or not the United States was destined to be a hammer to smite Prussianism, she was fated to be, thus felt the idealists of the Orient, a most powerful curb and bridle on the imperialism of England. The dangerous phrase, "freedom of the sea", for instance, was not understood by the common sense of mankind in its petty technical (legal and juristic) significance such as it obtains in the treatment of neutral shipping on high seas in times of war. Laymen and women in Asia as in Eur-America understood this slogan in the larger but simpler political acceptation, which could only mean the deliverance of the world from the military, naval and mercantile domination of the seas by Great Britain.

At any rate, Asians were enthusiastic in the belief that though President Wilson's self-determination measure did not expressly mention the subject and semi-subject peoples of Asia, this declaration of faith at the time of the peace and afterward was bound to be interpreted by the world's idealists and the international jurists as applying to Asia quite as much as to the submerged races of Europe. For the next three or four decades political agitation in Asia will be carried on according to slogans which America has popularized in the heat of this Armageddon. These would have as vital a significance to the radicals of Young Asia as were the "ideas of 1789" for revolutionary Europe in 1830 and 1848. In fact, the nationalist leaders in India took advantage of the situation by despatching to President Wilson himself a formally drafted memorandum in regard to the question of self-direction for India (1918).

10. New Asian States and America.

Political agitation and activity is already rife in Asia as an aftermath of the war. The political map is in for vast changes in India as elsewhere. Already, by the dismemberment of Turkey and Russia, the war has altered the face of the western and northern parts of the continent.

Take Russia-the revolution there, with the theory of Sovietic administration, has split up Russian Asia into at least four important political zones. First, to the west is Transcaucasia, including Armenia in Turkey and Azerbaijan in Northwest Persia. Next comes that enormous terra incognita vaguely known as Central Asia, or as Turcomania, which lies between the Caspian Sea and the Balkash Lake. It includes the Trans-Caspian Province, the Desert of Karakum and, paradoxically, the most fertile region in the world, Bokhara. Bokhara has two million people, and though little known outside, is a seat of living Moslem culture quite as influential as even Cairo. This region also includes the great Kirgiz steppes.

The third zone is what might be called Central Siberia, stretching between Tomsk, on the Obi River, and Irkutsk, on Lake Baikal. It is a mining region. All the important minerals—gold, coal, iron, copper, tin—are found there. The fourth zone, stretching from Trans-Baalkalia Province to the maritime provinces on the Pacific, is primarily agricultural.

Then take Turkey. Her defeat has led to the loss of Arabia by secession and of Palestine and Mesopotamia by conquest. All that remains of Turkey in Asia, as we used to see it on the maps, is the fragment called Anatolia, or Asia Minor, especially after the Greek war of aggression (1921) manipulated as it was by British gold and diplomacy.

And what does this mean for the future? It means the possibilities in the world for six or seven new centres of political life. And this would involve, as a matter of course, an unprecedented expansion of foreign and especially of American enterprise, financial backing and technological assistance in order to develop these new Asian states. Each of these regions needs railway and mining engineers. Besides, in Mesopotamia, river-engineering can drain the marshes and revive the glories of ancient Babylon and mediaeval Baghdad, while in Turcomania the Amu Daria's channel can be diverted back to the Caspian Sea and convert the arid plains and treeless wastes into a land of plenty like another Egypt.

None of these new nationalities are going to remain "mandated" areas or buffer-states. They are born to put an end to the submerged Asia. Along with them is entering into the world activities a nationalized, self-conscious Asia, which has raised the cry: "If self-determination was the thing for Europe, what's wrong with a doctrine of self-determination for us?"

Asia expects the United States to be something like a "big brother" to her struggling subject and semi-subject nationalities. By the Monroe Doctrine (1823), all through the nineteenth century, the United States has been the moral guardian of the New World. In Europe, it has been England's historic policy to be the diplomatic friend of lesser states. But situated as she is in Asia, she requires to be watched and guarded against in her policies regarding Persia, the Yangtse Valley, Egypt and, last but not least, India. Young Asia looks forward to a day when America, like Japan, will assume the role of guide, philosopher and friend, and will co-operate with her in bringing a free Asia into being.

That consummation—Swarâj of Asia—would be the greatest bulwark of international peace and the surest safeguard of the world's democracy. Abraham Lincoln pointed out that no nation could permanently exist half slave and half free. Go just one step further. How can humanity hope for permanent tranquillity and happiness when it is half self-determined and half subjected? And Asia, be it remembered, is the home of more than half the human race.

11. India in the United States.

America seems responsive to the demands of Asia. In regard to India, for instance, an American Commission has been founded at Washington to support the Swarâj movements in that country. And American papers have given publicity to the following news served by the Associated Press from Delhi on Nov. 4, 1921:

"All-India Congress Committee, consisting of 200 delegates today adopted a resolution, with only seven dissenting votes, adhering to the policy of "civil disobedience," including non-payment of taxes and complete non-cooperation. Mahatma Gandhi . . . emphasized the seriousness of the proposed non-violent revolution and uttered a warning against adopting the measure in light-hearted manner . . . . . It had been supposed the Congress might resort to more violent methods. . . . . . Several of the speakers advocated a more advanced program."

Commenting on this complete boycott of British administration by the swarâjists (self-rulers) of India, the New York Nation wrote quite a characteristically American editorial note in its issue of November 16 while the "disarmament conference" was holding its debates at Washington. "This inconspicuous dispatch", said the editor, "bears news which may prove to be more momentous for the future of the world than any congress of the Western nations. At least it concerns the future not only of British rule in India but white dominance of Asia."

The following twelve charges against British rule in India were unanimously adopted on December 5 1920 at Hotel Mc Alpin, New York, at the first national convention of the American "Friends of Freedom for India":

1. We charge that for 150 years, the official oligarchy of Great Britain has ruled and dominated India in the exclusive interests of the British Empire and that such rule has been opposed to the welfare of all the Indian people.
2. We charge that as a direct result of British exploitation, the native industrial system has broken down and has almost wholly disappeared, so that workers in the native crafts have been forced to abandon their accustomed and preferred callings, to work on the land and in factories in order to provide such foodstuffs and other products as British imperial necessities demand.
3. We charge that as general ignorance and illiteracy were a necessary condition to the successful exploitation of the resources and people of India, Great Britain has steadily and persistently cut off the means of education as is evidenced by the educational appropriation of $1,838,338 out of an annual budget of about $600,000,000 in 1920-21. As a result the Indian people of today have not opportunities equal to those which existed prior to the time that Britain seized India.
4. We charge that through a carefully fostered system of scanty credit, excessive taxation, enforced exportation and beggarly pay, Great Britain has literally starved the people of India by the millions in spite of the fact that India, left to herself, would be able to raise sufficient food to nourish her entire population.
5. We charge that under British rule, native women have been drawn into the horrors of prostitution in order to satisfy the lust of the soldiers who, for the purpose of supporting the mastery of the foreign rule, have been maintained under unnatural conditions in tremendous numbers and at the expense of the Indian people.
6. We charge that with the double object of financial extortion and of drugging the free spirit of India, Great Britain has devised a system of opium monopoly and traffic which not only deliberately seeks to corrupt the body and mind of the Indian people, but to extract the last penny from those whom it succeeds in corrupting, and further, that the responsible managers of this system have sought to create new drug victims among the little children.
7. We charge that under British rule, deeds of violence, deaths from plague, venereal disease, sickness and misery have increased.
8. We charge that British rule has sought to destroy the indigenous culture of India, its philosophy, art and literature, to crush the pride of the people and to alienate them from their traditions and to hold them up to the contempt of the world as an ignorant people.
9. We charge that the policy of British rule in India has been a systematic destruction of initiative in administration and executive control of all public functions, in order to make self-government in India impossible in the course of time and on the partial success of which policy the Britishers justify before the world the necessity of the prolongation of their control.
10. We charge that during the past few years a course of ruthless suppression and oppression has been entered upon by Great Britain in order to overcome the rising tide of indignation and the demand for freedom which have been the inevitable result of foreign rule so that today, in all of India, the native population is deprived of the very last vestige of those human rights which our Declaration of Independence declared inalienable.
11. We charge that there is today a demand throughout the whole of India for independence from the rule of Great Britain; that this demand is based, among others, upon acts similar to those of which we complained in our Declaration of Independence.
12. We charge that Great Britain has, in order to conceal her iniquitous conduct, created an extensive system of propaganda and espionage and persecution throughout the world which has been skillfully employed in this country and that all real news and correct accounts of what is now happening in India has been wholly suppressed except for what comes through by underground means at the risk of the life and liberty of the messenger."

These categorical pronouncements from Americans, most of whom by the bye are 100% Anglo-Saxons, indicate that the ideal of political freedom is not in the mind of the United States,— in the mentality at any rate of a section of the American public, limited by latitude and longitude. The advocacy of freedom for India is the acid test for American liberalism and love of liberty. For in championing India's emancipation the people of the United States are deliberately calling into being a new free state or bundle of free states outside of the boundaries of Eur-America. And secondly, in so fraternizing with the Hindus and Moslems of Asia America is forced to part company with the British Isles with which she is connected by more than one cultural link.

India's freedom has evoked the active sympathy and cooperation of America's working men and farmers no less than that of the lawyers, professors, preachers, merchants, bankers and journalists. In May 1920 the American Socialist Party passed the first resolution ever passed by any American Party for India's national independence. At the first preliminary conference as well as at the first annual congress of the Farmer-Labor Party a similar resolution was adopted. Both these parties availed themselves of the help of Tarak Nath Das, Sailendra Nath Ghose and Basanta Koomar Roy in their deliberations on India.

The "Industrial Workers of the World", known usually as I.W.W., is a purely industrial but revolutionary organization and is not a "party" in the political sense. The great press of the I. W. W., consisting as it does of 14 weeklies, monthlies and dailies in eight different languages, have published some of the best editorials on the struggle in India that have ever appeared in the United States.

While the deportation of Hindu political refugees was being pushed by the Federal Government owing to the pressure of Great Britain, American labour organizations of all denominations from the conservative American Federation of Labor to the I.W.W. passed resolutions against the projected expulsion of Indians and for their right to asylum in the U. S. as well as for India's freedom. Dozens of labor organizations appointed "India committees" of their own men whose business consisted in arranging mass meetings on India and distributing news about India among labour-journalists. It was the systematic and steady support of the labor organizations which eventually proved to be the chief factor in Young India's triumph over British intrigue with the government at Washington, D. C.

In order to help the political refugees from India the All-Central Council of the Trade Unions in Seattle was prepared to do "anything within their power." On being asked if they would call a general strike in Seattle they replied: "Yes, we will see that no Indian is deported from Seattle harbor." (Three Indians had been held in Seattle on the Pacific Coast). And leaders of the Hindustan Gadar (Revolution) Party at San Francisco had reasons to believe that they could depend on the promise of American Unionists.

Young India's anti-Britishism has found champions among the members of the U. S. Congress also. In connection with the discussions over the Treaty of Versailles the case for India formed part of the speeches of Senators Joseph I. France, La Follette and George Norris (1919). Recently on May 11, 1922, "the fight for independence for India was officially recognized", says the Boston American, "by the cities of Boston and Cambridge through their representatives (the Mayors) at a dinner given in observance of the Independence day of that nation."

Notes

1. The Immigration Situation in Other Countries, pp. 61-75, in the Report of the Immigration Commission Series (Washington, D. C).↩
2. Hall: Immigration, pp. 327—335; Mills: The Japanese Problem in the United States, p. 277.↩
3. Immigration Situation in Other Countries, p. 52.↩
4.  Hall: 342.↩
5. Statistical Abstract of the United States (1916), pp. 106-107; Jenks: The Immigration Problem, p. 253.↩
6. Steiner: The Japanese Invasion, pp. 17-19; Mills, p. 2.↩
7. Mary Coolidge: Chinese Immigration, pp. 424-427, 500; Gulick: American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship, p. 138-139.↩
8. Roberts: The New Immigration, p. 362; Balch: Our Slavic Fellow Citizens, p. 461.↩
9. "Pure-blood Hindus belong ethnically to the Caucasian or white race and in several instances have been officially declared to be white by the United States Courts in naturalization proceedings." United States Census (1910), Vol. i, p. 126.↩
10. Roberts: 370: According to the United States Census (1910), vol. i, (p. 1186) the illiteracy of Chinese in the United States was 15.8 per cent, and that of Japanese 9.2 per cent.↩
11. The Italian in America, p. 235.↩
12.  Page 183.↩
13. Brandenburgh: Imported Americans, p. 53.↩
14. Balch: p. 42.↩
15.  Page 141.↩
16. Roberts: p. 295.↩
17. Mills: pp. 197-226; Gulick: The American Japanese Problem, pp. 336-339.↩
18. Steiner: pp. 46, 81-83.↩
19. Pages 335-337, 356; Foster: American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 300, 301, 306.↩
20. M. Coolidge: pp. 69-82, 129, 255-277.↩
21. M. Coolidge: pp. 188, 271.↩
22. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1886, pp. 101. 154-158.↩
23. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1886, pp. 105, 140-143.↩
24. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1890, pp. 228-230; 1892, pp. 138, 140, 442—143, 147—156; M. Coolidge: pp. 197, 221, 466, 471.↩
25. M. Coolidge: p. 271.↩
26. Dr. Rajani Kanta Das, a Hindu, lecturer on World-Trade in New York University, has recently been appointed by the Federal Board of Labor to report on the conditions of Hindu working men and farmers on the Pacific Coast (1922).↩
27. The immigration law has been revised in 1921. According to the new regulations the annual quota of each foreign country must not exceed 3 per cent of the total number of the nationals which the last census gives as residents of the United States. But there is no limit to the number of bona fide students, travellers, merchants, lecturers etc. who enter the United States without the idea of permanent residence.↩