7. THE BELIEF IN RACIAL SUPERIORITY

ROUND TABLE (ONE MEETING): MR. CHEN, CHAIRMAN

The idea of racial superiority is widely distributed amongst peoples and is not necessarily associated with actual race preeminence. The differences which may exist between races in the excellence of their natural endowments and their achievements is not here in question. That such differences exist between the extreme types of humanity seems obvious; to discover them between the races represented at this Institute would be difficult and not pertinent to the present discussion.

The belief in racial superiority grows out of ignorance of other races and their achievements, and the failure to know at first hand the really representative individuals of other races. This is augmented by fear of submergence by the lower classes of another race. There are doubts of the intellectual and moral capacities of other peoples, and their social institutions and customs appear crude and repellent. The question is raised as to whether or not there is a fundamental biological cause for racial distrust and antagonism.

The sense of racial superiority seems to assume that other people are less sensitive and that a large measure of rudeness is natural and not especially reprehensible. Numerous instances of this lack of courtesy were adduced during the discussions. It seems to be tacitly assumed that other races, because of their inferior institutions, must be "assimilated" to one's own. There is usually an especial sensitiveness on the subject of intermarriage.

That there is a proper place for a suitable pride in one's race and its achievements which makes for self respect and emulation is reasonable. This, however, does not necessarily involve scorn of other peoples. The real danger lies in the obsession of the idea of superiority leading a people to assume that it has special rights to possess the earth and the fullness thereof, and that other races, being of a lower order of creation, need not be considered. Such an attitude, either expressed or implied, must lead to bitterness and strife.

Ways should be provided to get the several peoples better acquainted with one another, with their contributions to human advancement and their great men. A concrete suggestion was made that books might be prepared as supplementary reading matter in the schools giving the biographies of eminent men of other races.

8. THE MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHT OF A NATION TO

EXCLUDE ALIENS

ROUND TABLE (ONE MEETING): STANLEY BRENT, CHAIRMAN

Chief Issue:

How reconcile two contradictory rights.

(a) The right of a chance to live in the world.

(b) A right to determine who shall be our neighbors.

Discussion:

1. Should be more concern on the question of what is wise or expedient than what is right.

2. A nation has a right to get its own house in order before facing the international problem.

3. Restricted, selective immigration would be advisable, if we had the machinery to control it.

4. Racial discrimination should be ruled out as a factor.

5. Place emphasis on what we want to come in, rather than what we want to keep out.

Suggestion:

We should submerge our legal and moral rights into what is wise or expedient in the light of our international responsibility.

9. TREATMENT OF RESIDENT ALIENS

ROUND TABLE (TWO MEETINGS): MR. LEEBRICK, CHAIRMAN

I. The facts regarding the treatment of resident aliens in Pacific countries, with respect to: I. residence and travel; 2. ownership of land and other privileges; 3. citizenship, were tabulated (see pages 175-6).

II. In the discussions the following distinctions were kept in mind: a. Legal disabilities of aliens generally.

b. Discrimination as between aliens of different races and nationalities.

c. The distinction between:

1. Federal or national discrimination.

2. Provincial, "State" or municipal discrimination.

3. Social custom.

d. The distinction between:

1. Legal discrimination, i. e. laws, administrative or statutory rules and ordinances.

2. Discrimination by conduct of officials (where the law does not lay down binding rules).

III. The discussion revealed the facts:

a. There are few discriminations against aliens regarding residence or travel.

b.

1. There are in most countries a few national restrictions against aliens of a rather minor and technical nature. 2. There are State or provincial discriminatory laws of many types, especially regarding engaging in business, ownership of land, etc. (In British Columbia, the denial of the franchise to citizens of Asiatic races was discussed). c. In the British Commonwealth, in the United States, and in the Philippines, birth within the country confers citizenship. Naturalization is possible for all aliens who meet the legal requirements in all countries, with the exception of the United States and the Philippines, where naturalization of Asiatics is not possible.

IV. It was suggested that these facts presented the following basic problems:

a. Racial prejudices.

b. Mass immigration.

c. Naturalization.

d. Dual citizenship.

e. What constitutes assimilibility?

f. Standards of living and economic basis of race prejudice.

V. Suggestions for solutions were:

a. To study the question of assimilibility.

b. To change naturalization laws so that they will be based upon individual fitness for citizenship.

c. To work for the abolition of dual citizenship.

d. To try and eliminate discriminations based upon prejudice as far as possible.

e. Racial surveys like that undertaken on the Pacific Coast of America.

VI. Discussion in the Forum centered around two points:

a. The right of a nation to send her people abroad.

1. It was pointed out that the white races seem to follow the principle that they have a right to go anywhere and everywhere.

2. The white races having possessed themselves of much of the earth's surface now maintain that they have the right to exclude non-white races and to regulate all immigration.

b. The interest which nations have in their emigrants after they have settled in another country and have become citizens of that country; the interest in descendants of their emigrants even where citizenship is gained by birth. This raised the question of dual citizenship, and of the attitude which a nation should take toward its emigrants who have become citizens of another nation. The distinction between citizens of alien ancestry and resident aliens did not seem clear in the minds of many.

LEGAL FACTS REGARDING TREATMENT OF RESIDENT ALIENS IN PACIFIC COUNTRIES

NEW ZEALAND

Equality: No discrimination in
ownership but Emperor may de-
clare that nationals of countries
which do not grant equal privil-
eges may not own land. This has
not yet been done.

Like Japan, except for several
treaties still in force, which were
made with Korea.

No restrictions in ownership. No
sion.
Asiatics eligible for old-age pen-
(None eligible by age to
claim it to be remedied). Pos-
sibly a few other minor restric-

PRIVILEGES (OWNERSHIP OF PROP

PERTY, ETC.)

All eligible. (Power of discretion
on part of officials). Franchise.
(Commonwealth and in 4 of 6
states; restricted in 2 states).
Wives of alien-Europeans and In-
dians have right-not Chinese.

Birth or naturalization. Except
B. C. denies vote to Japanese,
Chinese, Hindoos, and Indians,
even to those born in Canada who
are thereby Canadian citizens.

Naturalization open to all. So
far only Koreans applied in any
number; conditions
are adverse
to Europeans applying. Children
born of foreigners are foreigners
according to blood of fathers.
No discrimination
: Children of
foreigners are foreign; naturaliza-
tion by complying with ordinances.

Same as Japan.

Chinese pay registration fee, but
naturalization is open to all. Citi-
zenship by birth, unless otherwise
declared by the individual.

tions.