East, that is to say, in China, Japan and India, is one of the difficulties we are facing. It is a result of our civilization. We had a feudal system under which land was regarded as given by some one else. The peasant owning and cultivating a piece of land was supposed to derive his rights from the feudal lord, and he from the king, and the king derived and received his rights to rule from heaven. Everything was given from above to those below. So in the family, the children had to obey the father or the chief of the family. The latter was not so much an autocrat as that he represented family tradition. He was held responsible to his ancestors, and hence, ancestor worship. This respectful observance towards superiors resulted in contentment with one's present condition. This is illustrated by marriage. In the Orient marriage is arranged by the parents or even the uncles and aunts of the persons to be married. In former times it often happened that the young people did not see each other until the wedding ceremony. This system brought about the trouble over the so-called "picture brides" of Japan. Sometimes the man did not even see his bride's picture! Everything is arranged by the parents and is accepted as a matter of course by the young people. Conditions have changed now, due to the influx of western ideas. But this attitude of acceptance has permeated the life of the Orient up to the present. It has its counterpart in our type of religious faith and ecstatic contemplation.

The early Christians, especially the mystics, understood religion as a matter of receptivity and peace. They interpreted the Way of the Cross in a negative manner. To them man was the instrument of God's will. He should give up everything superficial to receive the real will of God. The modern Christian's motto is progress and activity, expressing itself in missions, Young Men's Christian Association, charitable works, swimming pools, etc. I refer to these activities not to criticize but in order to emphasize by contrast the medieval attitude and the modern Christian attitude. Christianity and Christian people are the bearers of progress, physical science and industry. The difference between the Occidental and Oriental ideas of religion is the same difference as that in their civilizations. One is expressed in movement and the other in contemplation. The Occidentals find expression in progress and take pleasure in making speed. The Orientals are changing many of their ways and adopting things from the West, but still their attitude toward life is one of contemplation. This is shown in Oriental fatalism. Every one of us has something of this. I do not know whether the Chinese strikers have this attitude, but when they return to their homes, when they go back to their families and especially when they go to the tombs of their ancestors, they will look at life with the attitude of contemplation. This attitude of contemplation is best

expressed in the Oriental term "Nirvana." They feel they are a part of the cosmic life and of nature.

Now the Orientals are forced to take a new attitude towards life. They must achieve progress. They must have factories, engines, locomotives, and battleships or they will be crushed. This new activity in the Orient is necessarily accompanied with confusion and troubles. This is especially true in China where they have had to adopt new ideas very quickly after centuries of doing things the same way. But the Oriental has not entirely given up his attitude of serenity and contemplation.

If the meeting of these two civilizations means only conflict, then there is no hope of better relations between the East and West. The East will have to be crushed by Western material progress, especially by the Nordic races which are dominating the world. Shall we be crushed or try something else and achieve progress without giving up our old attitude towards life?

I wonder whether Occidental progress is to rule or whether all aspects of life can be put on the basis of spiritual principles or ideals, which I presume is a way to go back to Christ. We should not be aspiring after motor cars and airplanes only, but should aspire to a higher life, and make the present good count towards the future.

In reply to a question Professor Anesaki said: The Buddhist attitude of renunciation, the Confucian morality and the Christian Way of the Cross are three ways of expressing the same thing. In thought and in the fundamental approach to life they find appreciation and sympathy one with the other. In the last analysis the antagonism between the West and East, between activity and passivity, is not fundamental.

14. AMERICAN SENTIMENT ON PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC

BY CHESTER H. ROWELL

There are American interests and historic policies in the Pacific but it is doubtful whether there has ever been such a thing as united or organized American sentiment upon them. Our problem then is to carry out these historic policies which are constructive, and cooperate at the same time that we educate a more intelligent sentiment to stand behind them.

By very position and outlying possessions, America has, of necessity, become a major Pacific power. We are bound to the problems of Central America by the Panama Canal; to the South Seas by Guam and the American possession of the island Tutuila in the Samoan group; to Siberia by the long arm of the Aleutian Islands; to Asia generally by our relation to the Philippines; to China by many ties of history and sentiment and by

increasing business investments; and to Japan by the same ties and by our joint responsibility as the two great nations of modern organization and developed power in the Pacific area. India is out of the Pacific area; Australia and New Zealand are of relatively small populations; Canada is still under-populated. This leaves the United States as the one great Occidental nation facing the Pacific in its continental domain and reaching out in its other interests into touch with all the other peoples and problems of the Pacific. We could not, if we would, pursue a policy of isolation in this half of the world.

Historically we have had no such policy. The tradition against entangling alliances had reference originally and has been applied since exclusively to European problems. We have never had any isolationist as to the problems of the American hemisphere and if the recent development of isolation mania in America has produced some fanatics who would apply it across the Pacific, they represent neither the historic policy nor any developed sentiment in America.

While all these things are true as to the interests and policy of America, it is doubtful if there has ever been any considerable portion of the American people who knew or much cared what these policies were. We have been ignorant and provincial, rather than consciously isolationists in regard to them. So long as the Pacific was a wide ocean separating us from distant lands, this remained as a possible situation. We could leave our diplomats to meet such proplems as arose and the rest of us were at least able to let them alone. That time has ended. The world has shrunk until its peoples are almost literally in one room and at least some of the Pacific issues have become acute enough to arouse the interest of the formerly uninterested classes on both sides of the Pacific. Henceforward our relations must be conducted democratically. And the secret of democracy is education. Unless our people know intelligently and accurately, they will not act wisely. It is for this reason, namely, that the problem has become one of education that a meeting like this which has no power to act has nevertheless jurisdiction of the force which determines all action.

Through the ages we have dwelt on worlds apart. From his original home, somewhere east of Europe, some force or some impulse drove the white man westward and ever westward. Across the Near East, in successive waves across Europe, across the Atlantic to the shores of America and then in the long migration across the American continent, this movement has lasted for at least five thousand years and is the oldest and most universal fact in Occidental history. With the migration of peoples went the spread and unification of culture, until in the half of the world, which

for us was the historic half, there developed one great people conscious amidst all these diversities of its own unity. This is the people which constituted the Roman Empire and the outlying tribes with which the Roman Empire fought. Later it constituted what we called Christendom. In modern times divided into nations and nationalities, frequently warring on each other, it has nevertheless, been united by a common consciousness of race, history, religion and institutions.

Meanwhile, in Asia, moving eastward instead of westward, there was another movement not so simple. A movement not always of peoples but continuously of culture. A movement less united because distances were greater and roads poorer than those of the West, but a movement which nevertheless when it has now come into consciousness of its own unity, perceives that there always was a unity of which to be conscious. That unity too, has reached its culmination and piled up its advancing populations on the shores of the Pacific. These two great peoples now face each other across a dwindling ocean in an age when their interests mingle and when their contacts can no longer be kept at arm's length.

Across the gulf which once separated us, reached many arms which, if used aright, will make for mutual helpfulness but which if used wrongly, can promote only increasing discord. The chief of these arms is business. Japan is industrialized, China is beginning to industrialize. This is still a capitalistic world in which industry meets capital. America has the capital and the trained organizing ability in probably greater quantities than any other nation. It is accumulating an increasing surplus of these powers which must find an outlet elsewhere. What we are to determine is whether that outlet shall be beneficial or injurious, whether it shall make for exploitation or for development. In any event it will make for peace. Those who have a stake in a country have thereby a stake in its stability. Peace of course, might be a pax Romana, the mere enforced subjugation of a people. The world has grown too old to submit to that and let us hope that the peoples now in possession of the principal physical force of the world, are too wise to attempt the madness of imposing it. If they did, they would reap the whirlwind.

There is only one peace that is constructive. That is, the peace of justice, of organization and of cooperation. Among themselves the western peoples have developed the most advanced system of justice between individuals that the world has known. They are now just struggling toward similar institutions of justice between nations. Unless they can solve this for themselves, it is useless to hope for its solution among the less organized nations of the earth and unless they can include the Orient in this all-encircling justice, it is scarcely worthwhile to establish it anywhere.

In the Pacific there are the additional problems of organization in the face of the fact that China, the most populous nation in the Orient, inhabitating the land with the greatest natural resources, is still in the preliminary throes of what is to be its final organization. This leads to the temptation to establish either intrusion into or dictation over or exploitation of, China. If we are to have either peace, justice or progress, we must resist all these temptations. It has been the historic policy of America to take the Chinese side of these questions and I think we may feel confident that any American administration will remain true to this policy. With the Pacific nations of the British Commonwealth, cooperation and policy is so obvious as to be automatic. With Japan, the necessity of that cooperation should be equally obvious. These two nations are, in modern equipment, the two great powers of the Pacific. It is for their navies, together with the British Navy, to keep open the ways and to guard the peace of the Pacific. Between them is bound to be in increasing degree, the greatest commerce of the Pacific. If there arise problems in the Pacific requiring organized action, they are the powers in possession of that organization; and they, especially Japan, are the intermediaries for the beneficial exchange of the cultures of two great historic civilizations. These problems, with all their ramifications we have in common and on them we have a common interest. They affect the welfare of hundreds of millions of people through all the ages to come. They are the great responsibility which fate has placed in our time on two great peoples. If we have in addition some small problems located not across the Pacific but concerned with the affairs of a very few of the nationals of one of these peoples, living on the soil of the other, let us meet these problems too, as wisely and as justly as we can, but let us also retain our sense of proportion and if either of us should make what the other regards as mistakes on this small problem, let us while not necessarily approving or condoning the mistake, at least recognize that it is a mistake on a relatively small problem. Let us agree, if we can, on these small things, but let us at least, I pray you, never make even disagreements on them, an obstruction to our mutual helpfulness in our infinitely greater joint responsibility.

It is after all, a problem of education; to that, we can contribute. We can contribute personally, by our own influences in our own countries. Each of us has contacts and an audience; each of us has learned some things here which he did not know before. We can be the medium of extending that knowledge to our own people. In addition we can consider how to increase the quantity and improve the quality of the exchange of news across the Pacific. I have an idea that merely increasing the quantity will do much toward improving the quality. If you transmit five thou