over-polite and when a democracy acts and acts as a democracy it is apt to think in terms of action rather than diplomacy. The inability of the whole American people to understand the problems of immigration, particularly as related to any individual country, and their insistence that something definite should be done after the World War experience, led to the fixed attitude taken by Congress demanding that its premier position in this subject should be recognized. There was no one common opinion in the United States except that something must be done.

There was but little national appreciation of the peculiar conditions on the Pacific Coast. It was because of the great political importance which California and the west had come to occupy because of the election of President Wilson for his second term through the close vote in California and because of the universal desire to have immigration legislation passed which brought about the action taken towards Japanese immigration.

I have endeavored to give a brief summary of the historical background in order to illuminate the present position of the people of the United States towards the Pacific. There is a traditional sentiment of respect and of affection for the peoples of China and Japan. Australia, Canada and the other Pacific countries are admired but are taken for granted.

Indeed, one of the most difficult problems for the American statesman has been to cultivate a proper appreciation of foreign relations. The American has been so busy working out the problems of his own country, developing his own government, constructing the states, building up educational institutions and using the great resources of a great continent that it has been hard to interest him outside of his own borders. The continent has been so rich in most of the elements needed for the new industrial age that the few things, rubber, coffee, tin and nitrates, absolutely required from the outside have been obtained without coming to the consciousness of the every-day citizen. Besides, the efforts made for the Americanization of the immigrant have, many of them, been directed to cutting off interest in other countries. Thus, outside of those retaining interest in one mother country, there has been created a national and not an international consciousness.

It is hard for the stranger to understand the peculiar idealism and the pioneer spirit of the American people. Even the recent immigrants come to this country with exalted ideals and the willingness to meet new conditions. This has brought about a population somewhat temperamental and one peculiarly sensitive to external pressure and influences.

I can perhaps best illustrate the difference by using the Philippines as an example. Outside of a limited few who are concerned in the education, commerce and government of those islands, Americans are indifferent to

the Philippines. In fact, they do not think of them at all and, if they were set free, there would be but little interest. But if the Philippines should be lost by conquest to any nation, the American people would think of nothing else until they got them back again.

I think that I am justified in saying that there is a general sense of fair play on the part of the American people. The public attitude towards the "open door" policy in China has always been that it had the intent to offer at least a square deal. There is no sentiment in America for an extension of territory through conquest. With all the changes following the Great War and the position of the United States on the victorious side there was no suggestion of the absorption of new territory. In fact, there was such a strong sentiment against being associated with new territory that even the mandates offered the United States were not accepted.

There is a general attitude on the part of the United States of goodwill towards all the countries of the Pacific. There is the hope that out of friendly understandings and contacts there may develop relationships in the Pacific so that this ocean will not have to play the bloody part which the Atlantic has taken in recent centuries.

The greatest difficulties, it seems to me, will come with the application of modern invention, modern industrial organization to the peoples of the vast areas of the countries surrounding the Pacific. Things have developed somewhat faster in America than elsewhere because of the ready acceptance of the industrial age. This, together with the great riches of the new continent, has developed a high standard of living. The endeavor to maintain this standard of living, particularly against those willing to labor under different conditions, is one of the most essential features of American life and the one where there is no willingness to make concessions.

We all face the Pacific together. Certainly in the domain of science and education we should be able to come to mutual understanding. Both science and education now contribute so definitely to political and national life, that if we can understand each other in science and education, we can work out common points of view which will avoid conflict.

As we of America need to understand better the heredity and general background of the peoples of Asia, so the leaders of the peoples of Asia must understand better the problems of our young country organized as a great Democracy, responsive and responsible to a majority which must be educated to an international point of view and to an appreciation of the significance of the great developments and the great forces which will mature on the Pacific in the years ahead.

13. EASTERN AND WESTERN CIVILIZATIONS

By MASAHARU ANESAKI

[Masaharu Anesaki, Professor of Comparative Religions and Librarian of Tokyo Imperial University, was to have been a member of the Institute but found it necessary to leave Honolulu the day before the Institute convened. His presence in Japan was required in connection with the rebuilding of the University Library, made possible by a gift of $2,000,000 from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. At the request of the Executive Committee Dr. Anesaki delivered the following public address.-Editor.]

I have to speak to you about the points of difference and similarity between the East and and West. It goes without saying that the East means, as it did in ancient times, chiefly Asia, and the West, Europe and later America. East and West are facing each other across the Pacific.

As for Europe and America, they are united by the same strain of civilization and culture, so there have been no difficulties about the Atlantic relations save some minor ones. Not so with regard to the relations between both sides of the Pacific. Here are found some deep-rooted differences, which fortunately, however, have not yet led to any dangerous crises, and which I earnestly hope will never occasion fatal disruptions.

Unlike the Atlantic relations the relations across the Pacific are not based upon intellectual, economic, political and moral ideas flowing from one side only. In the Pacific the currents of culture and civilization start from both sides and run into each other. The Occidental and Oriental elements coming together necessarily occasion conflicts and difficulties though I do not consider these difficulties incapable of harmonious settlement.

In history different strains of culture have met and antagonisms and difficulties have arisen. For instance, the clash of the Hebrew and Hellenic ideas are shown in the work of Paul and Peter. Then farther down in history the invasion from the north of the Germanic tribes who came down and ravaged and pillaged the ancient civilization of the Mediterranean races. There is a feeling that the domination of one over the other is a necessary fact. This remains true to a certain degree, at present, but it does not mean that it will be so forever. Take France, for example. The French are not a homogeneous people, and yet in spite of this they make up one nation unified in development and nationality. I personally feel that too much is made of nationalism. In history you see a repetition of different civilizations meeting and conflicting with one another. Out of such conflicts has come degeneration sometimes, but more often the result has been a happy union of cultures.

Now you are going to tackle this great program of the Pacific relations. You will take up subjects one by one and discuss them thoroughly. Material considerations will be studied. This is certainly proper in a sense, but I wonder whether it is not a fundamental error of science to reduce everything to economic effect. We cannot live without bread, but "one cannot live by bread alone." Its distribution and consumption is a very important matter, especially in this century of industry and commerce. But more important is the question of our attitude towards wealth. Wealth in itself is not necessarily an objectionable thing, it has a value undoubtedly. It is, however, our attitude whether as producer or consumer that is of importance. In the same way every factor in human life might be reduced to the commercial, intellectual, economic, or spiritual attitude of man towards life.

In the present time the West represents the progressive side of humanity. The western peoples are active and aggressive. The chief banner of the West is "Progress." The word and the idea of Progress is not so old as many people think. It began in the 18th century. Before that time your ancestors did not speak so much of progress. Many years ago people thought that the end of the world was approaching, whether towards a millenium or to a fatal end. Therefore progress was not regarded as the principal thing.

Now human life necessarily implies progress and progress means speed. Yes, speed, but where are you going?

The Orientals did not know how to make speed and were therefore stagnant. But we are now speed-making or aim at speed-making. Where are we going?

Real progress is a good thing. It supplies us with telephones, motor cars, and finally bombs.

Do the Occidentals have some idea of where you are going? The Orientals do not know where we are going. I wonder whether the Europeans know where they are going, especially the Germans. Germany is in a state of depression. Some of her scholars cry that civilization is doomed. I do not mean to press the point but I just wish to state my opinion as to the worth of progress when viewed apart from the moral and spiritual values of human life. Progress and physical conveniences are in a sense treasures of human life. The United States Constitution tells us that attainment of happiness is a right of man. But happiness changes from time to time. It may be found in a hermit's cell or in a motor car.

Coming back to the East our civilization has been stationary for ten centuries. This does not look very hopeful. Some people have lost hope. None of our people are entirely optimistic. That peculiar situation in the