We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
More than forty years after its initial publication, William Hinton's Fanshen continues to be the essential volume for those fascinated with China's revolutionary process of rural reform and social change. A pioneering work, "Fanshan" is a marvelous and revealing look into life in the Chinese countryside, where tradition and modernity have had both a complimentary and caustic relationship in the years since the Chinese Communist Party first came to power. It is a rare, concrete record of social struggle and transformation, as witnessed by a participant. "Fanshen" continues to offer profound insight into the lives of peasants and China's complex social processes. This classic volume includes a new preface by Fred Magdoff.
Famine in China, 1958-61.
The largest famine in human history occurred in China in modern times and passed almost unrecognized by the outside world. Demographic evidence indicates that famine during 1958-61 caused almost 30 million premature deaths in China and reduced fertility very significantly. Data on food availability suggest that, in contrast to many other famines, a root cause of this one was a dramatic decline in grain output that continued for several years, involving in 1960-61 a drop in output of more than 25%. Causes of this drop are found in both natural disaster and government policy. The government's responses are reviewed and implications of this experience for Chinese and world development are considered.- Authors
Edward Bing Kan: The First Chinese-American Naturalized after Repeal of Chinese Exclusion
On December 17, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law an Act to Repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts.[i] This repeal law overturned previous laws that had excluded the vast majority of Chinese immigrants since 1882. It also provided for a new annual quota of 105 Chinese immigrants. Additionally, the law added “Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent" to the categories of individuals eligible for naturalization.[ii] For the first time, any qualified lawfully admitted Chinese immigrant could become a naturalized U.S. citizen.[iii]
On January 18, 1944, one month and one day after the new law went into effect, Edward Bing Kan swore the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance in the U.S. District Court at Chicago, becoming the first Chinese-American to naturalize after repeal of Chinese Exclusion.[iv] Kan’s status as the first to naturalize was not the result of chance—for 35 years he had served as an interpreter in the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) Chicago office.
Kan, the son of a vegetable peddler, entered the U.S. as a student in 1892 at age 13 under his original name, Kan Kwong Bing.[v]He settled in Portland, Oregon and in 1900 married Katherine Wong, a U.S. born citizen of Chinese descent. Under some interpretations of U.S. nationality law at that time Edward’s noncitizen status effectively divested Katherine of her U.S. citizenship upon marriage.[vi]Edward’s status as an “alien ineligible for citizenship” prevented him from naturalizing, leaving Katherine’s citizenship status in doubt.
In 1909, Edward and Katherine moved to Chicago where Edward began his tenure as a Chinese translator for the Immigration Service. He held the position for more than 35 years. During that time he likely “witnessed the granting of citizenship to thousands,” as one report of his naturalization noted.[vii] Though denied access to naturalization some evidence suggests that Kan remained committed to the ideal of American citizenship. For example, he and Katherine provided presentations on “the Chinese in America,” to the Chicago Woman’s City Club Citizenship Class—events which included Katherine preparing traditional Chinese dishes.[viii] When Kan finally had the opportunity to naturalize one of his INS supervisors noted that he had always “expressed a keen desire for American citizenship.”[ix]
Kan’s position at the INS undoubtedly accelerated his journey to citizenship. As the repeal act worked its way through Congress he followed its progress closely and he filed his naturalization application the day after the president signed the repeal into law. It is unlikely that someone less familiar, or less comfortable, with INS employees and procedures would have taken such immediate action.
In a recently published book, Competition and Compromise among Chinese Actors in Africa, Niall Duggan asserts that “Sino-African relationship, and therefore China’s foreign policy towards Africa, is all-encompassing and deals in all areas of human exchange, such as economic cooperation, social and cultural exchange, and military interaction” (Duggan, 2020: 9). Because of this, Sino-Africa relations has been approached by many scholars from different disciplines such as Anthropology, Business, Development Studies, International Relations, Economics, Political Science and Sociology.
Development studies, for instance focuses on China’s development footprint in Africa (cf. Kaplinsky, 2008), viewing the engagement as consisting of a set of intertwined modes of interaction, mainly trade, investment and aid. Studies in this discipline focus on trends and patterns of economic relationships (cf. Jenkins et al., 2008 Kaplinsky and Morris, 2008). The modes of interactions have tended to be treated in isolation from politics. A majority of international relations scholars have either focused on Sino-US relations (cf. Kai, 2009 Liu, 2009 Wu, 2012) or Sino-Japanese relations (cf. Fan, 2008 Goodman, 2013 Dreyer, 2012) or Sino-Russian relations (cf. Chenghong, 2007). Political scientists focusing on Chinese politics look at the prospects for democratic transition (cf. Chin, 2018 Guo and Stradiotto, 2019 Schmitter, 2019). Because of this disciplinary divide, we have seen few political scientists and International Relation scholars engaging “with the development studies community or those concerned with core issues of development, such as well-being and equity and environmental sustainability. We thus need an interdisciplinary approach to understand China” (Mohan, 2013: 1257) ‒ Africa relations.
It is this clamor for interdisciplinary approach that informed the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Nairobi to organize inaugural conference on China-Africa Relations on 17‒18 October 2019. With the theme “From Sino-Africa to Afro-China Engagements in the 21st Century: Emerging Interdisciplinary Issues and Research Gaps”, under the auspices of University Research Week Initiative 2019, the two days conference brought together academic researchers from different fields, policymakers, political activists, media practitioners, representatives of civil society organizations for stimulating discussions on China’s engagement in Africa. The conference sought to appreciate interdisciplinary perspective in the study of China-Africa relations and discuss China’s Africa policy in the implementation of Africa’s Agenda 2063.
At the end of the call for papers, the organizing committee received 56 abstracts from a wide array of disciplines in social sciences. These papers were later reviewed, and 46 papers accepted for presentation were later organized into 11 Panels as follows: China versus the West Chinese agency versus African agency China and environmental conservation China and democracy in Africa China, peace and security in Africa China’s trade, debt and foreign direct investments ( FDI s) in Africa African perceptions towards China’s model of development China’s Belt and Road Initiative ( BRI ) China and Indian Ocean Region China-Africa cultural interaction and China’s public diplomacy in Africa. We noted that whereas some Panels featured predominantly one discipline (Political Science), others cut across many disciplines raising the need to offer interdisciplinary interpretations of China-Africa relations. In heeding Duggan’s call that “it is difficult to present overall trends within the literature of Sino-Africa relations without placing studies into broad [theoretical] classifications” (Duggan, 2020: 9), this introductory article attempts to organize a wide array of interpretation revealed during the conference into the following broad theoretical perspectives.
Book Series: China Foreign Affairs Review
Chen Zhirui (China Foreign Affairs University)
Ja Ian Chong (National University of Singapore)
Da Wei (China Institute of Contemporary International Relations)
Fan Jishe (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Taylor Fravel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
G John Ikenberry (Princeton University)
Jiang Guoqing (China Foreign Affairs University)
David Kang (University of Southern California)
David M Lampton (The Johns Hopkins University)
Jeffrey W Legro (University of Virginia)
Li Wei (Renmin University of China)
Liu Feng (Nankai University)
Iver Neumann (London School of Economics and Political Science)
Pang Xun (Tsinghua University)
Vincent Pouliot (McGill University)
Pu Xiaoyu (University of Nevada)
Qin Yaqing (China Foreign Affairs University)
Robert Ross (Boston College)
Randall Schweller (Ohio State University)
Shi Bin (Nanjing University)
Su Changhe (Fudan University)
Su Hao (China Foreign Affairs University)
Wang Yizhou (Peking University)
Wei Ling (China Foreign Affairs University)
William C Wohlforth (Dartmouth College)
Yin Jiwu (Beijing Foreign Studies University)
Zhang Qingmin (Peking University)
Zhang Yunling (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Zhou Fangyin (Guangdong University of Foreign Studies)
Zhu Liqun (China Foreign Affairs University)
China Foreign Affairs Review laid particular emphasis upon the major strategic, theoretical and policy issues relevant to China’s diplomacy, and reviewed the latest studies and reflections of China experts home and abroad.
The series are committed to recording and revealing the interaction between China and the international system, a process in which China accepts, integrates and reshapes the international society.
The series introduce Chinese scholars’ views to the world, aiming to make China better understood, further integrated into the international society, for peace and prosperity of the world, and for progress and development of China.
The Innes Review is a fully peer-reviewed journal promoting the study of the history of Catholic Scotland. It covers all aspects of Scottish history and culture, especially ones related to religious history.
Published continuously by the Scottish Catholic Historical Association since 1950, it contains articles and book reviews on a wide field of ecclesiastical, cultural, liturgical, architectural, literary and political history from earliest times to the present day. It is named after Thomas Innes (1662-1744), a missionary priest, historian, and archivist of the Scots College in Paris whose impartial scholarship stood out amongst the denominational prejudices of the time.
Editors and Editorial Board
Dr John Reuben Davies (University of Glasgow)
Dr Linden Bicket (University of Edinburgh)
Dr Miles Kerr-Peterson (University of Glasgow)
Please send books for review to Miles Kerr-Peterson, c/o 45 Grovepark Street, Glasgow, G20 7NZ
Professor Dauvit Broun (University of Glasgow)
Professor S. J. Brown (University of Edinburgh)
Professor Thomas Owen Clancy (University of Glasgow)
Professor David N. Dumville (University of Aberdeen)
Professor John J. Haldane (University of St Andrews)
Professor Máire Herbert (University College, Cork)
Dr S. Karly Kehoe (Saint Mary's University, Canada)
Professor Michael Lynch (University of Edinburgh)
Professor Graeme Morton (University of Dundee)
Professor Clotilde Prunier (Université Paris Nanterre)
Dr Steven Reid (University of Glasgow)
Professor Daniel Szechi (University of Manchester)
Dr Eila Williamson (University of Glasgow)
The Scottish Catholic Historical Association promotes the study of Scotland's religious past in all its facets. It does this primarily through its journal The Innes Review which has been published continuously since 1950.
The Innes Review is dedicated to the study of the part played by the Catholic Church in the history of the Scottish nation. It is named after Thomas Innes (1662-1744), a missionary priest, historian and archivist of the Scots College in Paris whose impartial scholarship and helpful cooperation did much to overcome the denominational prejudices of his age.
The Scottish Catholic Historical Association holds annual conferences. Please click here for further information on the Association conferences. Previous conferences have focused on 'Glasgow - a story worth telling' (2008), 'Diaspora' (2009) and 'Liturgy and the Nation' (2010).'
Individual subscriptions to The Innes Review include membership of the Association. Click here for information on how to subscribe to the journal and join the Association.
Please click here for further information about the Scottish Catholic Historical Association.
Armitage, David - Oceanic Histories
Editors: David Armitage, Harvard University, Massachusetts, Alison Bashford, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Sujit Sivasundaram, University of Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Publisher's Link
Review: Volume 21 - Chinese History - History
William M Bodiford: Remembering Dōgen: Eiheiji and Dogen Hagiography This is an excellent essay on the history of Eiheiji and its centuries-long fight to become the head temple of the Sōtō Sect and memorialize its founder, Dogen. A fascinating history. from The Journal of Japanese Studies 32.1 (2006) pp1-21
Nishiari Bokusan: All This is Genjo Koan Nishiari Bokusan is the late head of the Soto school. In 2912, Bokusan looked at the fundamental teaching of Dogen, the Genjo Koan. He explains the meaning of this most important fascicle of the Shobogenzo.
André van der Braak: Dōgen on Fullness &ndash Zazen as Ritual Embodiment of Buddhahood Braak discusses Dogen's approach to what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor calls "fullness" (the goal of spiritual practice), an approach "conceived as the ritual embodiment of buddhahood, expressed through the meditation practice of zazen."
Johannes Cairns: Tracing The Rhetoric Of Contemporary Zen: Dogen Sangha And The Modernization Of Japanese Zen Buddhism In The Light Of A Rhetorical Analysis Of A Weblog This is a BA thesis by Cairns focussing on a rhetorical analysis, via a weblog, of the Dogen Sangha, an international Zen group founded by Gudo Nishijima.
Brett Davis: The Philosophy of Zen Master Dōgen: Egoless Perspectivism Davis explicates Dogen's Genjokoan. from The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy
Bernard Faure: The Daruma-shū, Dōgen, and Sōtō Zen Faure examines the influence of the Bodhidharma (Daruma) School on Dogen's teachings and the Shobogenzo. As he says, "The traditional history of. Zen in Japan is not exempt from distortions." Excellent article! from Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 42, No. 1. (Spring, 1987), pp. 25-55.I suggest you also read Heine's Did Dogen Go to China? for more on Dogen hagiography.
The Dõgen Canon: Dõgen's Pre-Shõbõgenzõ Writings and the Question of Change in His Later Works from The Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1997. Heine argues a Three Periods Theory of Dogen's writing suggesting that the main change, which occurred with the opening of Eihei-ji in 1245, was a matter of altering the style of instruction rather than the content or ideology.
Critical Buddhism the Debate Concerning the 75-fascicle and 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō Texts Heine evaluates the views of Critical Buddhsim on how the two Shobogenzo texts illuminate Dogen's perspectives on original enlightenment thought in terms of his attitude to causality and karmic retribution. from Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1994 24/1
Koans in the Dōgen Tradition : How and Why Dogen Does what He Does with Koans: Heine analyses how Dogen used koans in his teaching and "that Dogen does not have a single, simple or uniform method of koan interpretation, but he varies rhetorical and narrative strategies to bring out particular ideas concerning specific items of doctrine and ritual." from Philosophy East and West, Vol 54, No. 2, January 2004
Did Dōgen Go to China?: Heine examines the evidence of Dogen's famous trip to China and the meeting with his teacher, Ju-ching. He concludes, Yes, Dogen did go to China but the real story is somewhat different than the hagiography tells. Excellent article from: Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 30/1&ndash2: 27&ndash59 Heine's book on this, Did Dogen Go to China? What He Wrote and When He Wrote It is available from Oxford University Press
A Day in the Life: Two Recent Works on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō Gyoji [Sustained Practice] Fascicle
Heine reviews 2 books on this, Ishi Shudo's Shobogenzo [Gyoji] ni manabu and Yasuraoka Kosaku's Shobogenzo [Gyoji] jo from Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 35/2: 363-371
Dogen Casts Off "What": An Analysis of Shinjin Datsuraku Heine does a critical analysis of Dogen's 'casting off body and mind (shinjin datsuraku)' questioning, did Dogen's teacher, Ju-ching, really say this or did Dogen mis-hear what his teacher said? from The Journal Of The International Association Of Buddhist Studies Vol 9, 1986 No. 1
Norimoto Iino: Dōgen's Zen View of Interdependence Dōgen had an all-encompassing, many-sided view of interdependence (parasparāpeksā). This is a lovely article, eloquent and a joy to read. Highly recommended
T. P. Kasulis: The Zen Philsopher: a review article on Dōgen scholarship in English : Kasulis begins by arguing that Zen can be interpreted through philosophical enquiry and goes on to review some major works of translation of Dogen. This article was originally published in 1978 in Philosophy East and West, Volume 28, no. 3, July so the reviews are limited (showing how much has changed since then in Dogen studies) but it's still worth reading. Recommended.
Taigen Dan Leighton: The Lotus Sutra as a Source for Dōgen's Discourse Style Leighton discusses Dōgen's appropriation of the Lotus Sutra at a rhetorical device in the Shobogenzo and other writings of Dogen.
Reflections on Translating Dogen: Leighton talks of the joy of discovering (and translating) Dōgen. originally published in Dharma Eye, October 2001Zazen as an Enactment Ritual: "Buddhist meditation has commonly been considered an instrumental technique aimed at obtaining a heightened mental or spiritual state, or even as a method for inducing some dramatic &ldquoenlightenment&rdquo experience. " However, Dōgen doesn't see zazen this way. Taigen Dan Leighton explains. originally published in Zen Rituals: Studies of Zen Theory in Practice, edited by Steven Heine and Dale Wright (Oxford University Press, 2006)
Miriam Levering: Dōgen's Raihaitokuzui and Women Teaching in Sung Ch'an Levering explores Dogen's relationship regarding women in the sangha and the role women played in Chinese Chan. from Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 21 &bull Number 1 &bull 1998
David R Loy Language against its own mystifications: Deconstruction in Nagarjuna and Dogen Loy compares these two great thinkers because "Nagarjuna and Dogen . point to many of the same Buddhist insights because they deconstruct the same type of dualities, most of which may be understood as versions of our commonsense but delusive distinction between substance and attribute, subject and predicate." He then goes on to look at the differences between the two. from Philosophy East and West 1999. Vol. 49, Iss. 3
Douglas K. Mikkelson: Who Is Arguing About the Cat? Moral Action and Englightenment According to Dōgen. A very interesting essay on Dogen's response to Nan-ch'uan cutting the cat, Pai-chang's Fox and the moral consequences of action. Did Nan-ch'uan commit evil by cutting the cat?
Terry C Muck: Zen Master Dōgen Meets a Thirteenth-century Postmodernist A lovely little essay exploring the koan Tokuzan Meets a Rice-Cake Seller. As Muck says, Dogen "offers the seeds of fruitful ideas for a way forward: beyond rationalism, without rancor, toward a true ecumenism of the human spirit." Recommended. from Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 1998, Vol. 35, Iss. 1
Yasuaki Nara: The Soto Zen School in Japan Dr Nara looks at some social issues regarding Soto Zen in modern Japan. Specifically, he focusses on the questions of discrimination and funerals within the school.
David Putney: Some Problems of Interpretation: early and late writings of Dogen. &ldquoThe purpose of this essay will be to concentrate primarily on two key hermeneutical problems: (1) the problem of the textual relationship between Dogen's late versus his early writings, and (2) the problem of Dogen's method of expression in his early and mid-period writings&hellip. The results of this inquiry may furnish a groundwork for addressing the philosophical questions regarding Dogen's early, middle, and late views on Original Enlightenment, "Buddha Nature," and Causality.&rdquo from Philosophy East and West Volume 46, Number 4
&lsquoPlace&rsquo And &lsquoBeing-Time&rsquo: Spatiotemporal Concepts In The Thought Of Nishida Kitarō And Dōgen Kigen "Perhaps the best known among . spatiotemporal East Asian concepts are the notions of &lsquoplace&rsquo ( basho ) of Nishida Kitarō (1870&ndash1945) and the &lsquobeing-time&rsquo ( uji ) of Dōgen Kigen (1200&ndash1253). This article is an effort at a comparative analysis of these notions, focusing especially on Nishida&rsquos philosophy as a synthesis of Western and Asian philosophical discourses." An interesting essay comparing Nishida and Dōgen's approach to a fundamental philosophical/religious problem. from Philosophy East and West - Volume 54, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 29-51
Inside the Concept: Rethinking Dōgen's Language The article places Dōgen's writing technique in the context of the linguistic changes that were taking place both in China and Japan at the time of his writing as well as the general attitude of Chan/Zen thinkers toward language, arguing that the Chan/Zen critique was not pointed to language as such, but its reified and alienated forms. Dōgen's concept-making could accordingly be seen as an effort to keep language 'alive.' from Asian Philosophy
Vol. 21, No. 2, May 2011
The Existential Moment: Rereading Dogen's Theory of Time Tackling one of Dogen's most philosophical writings, his theory on time, Uji, Raud reinterprets Dogen's Uji "with stress on the momentary rather than the durational" aspects of Dogen time. from Philosophy East and West Vol. 62 No. 2, April 2012.
Kevin Schilbrack: Metaphysics in Dogen "The first section of this essay introduces a definition of metaphysics that, although drawn from the Western philosophical tradition, is, I hope, generic enough to be useful for the study of philosophy outside the West, and then argues for the legitimacy of metaphysics as an interpretative tool for the understanding of Zen Buddhist thought. The second section spells out what I take to be the basic features of Dogen's metaphysics, and the third deals with a rival non-metaphysical interpretation of Dogen's philosophy. from: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 50, No. 1 (January 2000)
Richard Stodart: Painting/A Cake That Satisfies Hunger Artist Richard Stodart takes on Dogen's essay, Bussho (Buddha Nature, and explores "nonthinking in the painting experience". As Hee-Jin Kim comments in this essay: "A picture is not a representation of reality in the philosophical sense".
Otani Tetsuo: To Transmit Dogen Zenji's Dharma Tetsuo looks at the importance of transmission to Dogen, its history in the Soto sect and the significance of dharma transmission today in Soto Japan.
Dale S Wright: Doctrine and the Concept of Truth in Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō Wright looks at what Dōgen saw as the "truth" in practice and belief. "The aim of this study of the Shōbōgenzō will be to clarify its implicit concept of truth, and to show how such clarification can shed light on the meaning of the text as a whole." This is an excellent essay and well worth reading for a better understanding of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō.
Jimmy Yu: Contextualizing the Deconstruction and Reconstruction of
Chan/Zen Narratives: Steven Heine&rsquos Academic
Contributions to the Field Yu discusses four monographs by Steven Heine: Shifting Shape, Shaping Text: Philosophy And
Folklore In The Fox Koan Opening A Mountain: Koans Of The Zen Masters' Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote And
When He Wrote It Zen Skin, Zen Marrow: Will The Real Zen
Buddhism Please Stand Up? An excellent introduction to Steven Heine's work with a comprehensive bibliography. Source: Religious Studies Review &bull VOLUME 37 &bull NUMBER 3 &bull SEPTEMBER 2011 Note: a number of Heine's works are available on this page under 'Heine'.
Lets take those points individually
. Hunter-gatherers, some of them blue-eyed, who came from Africa more than 40,000 years ago
They would have looked like THIS:
. Middle Eastern farmers who migrated west much more recently
They would have looked like THIS:
. A mysterious population whose range may have spanned northern Europe and Siberia
We have no idea who that could be, unless they are talking about "Modern" Europeans AFTER they had migrated from Central Asia.
Here is a link to the actual study (pdf).
The La Brana skeleton's haplogroup was reported as Mtdna U5: (the same as 12,700 year old Cheddar Man in England, and some in the 3,000 year old Lichtenstein Cave in Lower Saxony, Germany).
Review: Volume 21 - Chinese History - History
The Hawaiian Situation: Our Present Duty
Digital History ID 4052
Author: William M. Springer
Annotation: Hawaiian annexation, 1893
Document: In the complications which have arisen recently in the Hawaiian Islands a few residents, prompted by their personal interests, nearly all of whom are of foreign birth and many of whom are aliens, have sought to embroil our government in the internal affairs of a peaceful, but feeble nation. The pretext for this intervention is based upon the alleged fact that the government of the queen of the Hawaiian Islands was a semi-barbaric monarchy resting on no solid or moral foundation, dead in everything but its vices, coarsely luxurious in its tastes and wishes, constantly sending out impure exhalations, and spreading social and political demoralization throughout the islands. This is the indictment against the monarchy made by the late minister, Mr. Stevens, who, after leaving the islands, further assails the government to which he was so recently accredited as a diplomatic representative, by charging that the queen has sustained scandalous and immoral relations with one of her ministers. This being the alleged condition of the government of Hawaii, an appeal is made to the moral sentiment of the American people to justify the overthrow of that government and establish in its stead what its friends and supporters have denominated “a Christian government,” by which we may assume, is meant a government whose administrators profess the Christian religion.
The provisional government which was established had no other foundation for its existence than what is called the great mass meeting of January 16, at which the whole attendance did not exceed sixteen hundred persons. At this meeting a committee of public safety was appointed, which committee proclaimed a provisional government. This provisional government was not even submitted to the town meeting for its approval. It could not have maintained an existence for an hour had it not been for the fact that the marine forces on board the United States steamship Boston, then lying in the harbor, were, at the request of the committee of public safety and the American minister, landed, and were stationed at such points as the American minister, acting in conjunction with the provisional government, directed. These armed forces of the United States remained on shore in Honolulu for seventy-five days, and thus this remarkable revolution in the Hawaiian Islands was accomplished. The government of Hawaii, whatever may have been its faults, was not founded upon bayonets, the whole number of the armed forces of the queen being less than one hundred, a mere police or constabulary force for maintaining law and order in and about the public buildings in the city of Honolulu. The local government was overpowered by the mere presence of the United States troops. The queen states, in her appeal to the President of the United States, that she surrendered to the superior forces of this government in order to avoid unnecessary conflict, and trusting to the justice of our government, when all the facts shall be known, to reinstate her in her rightful position.
Whether the government of Hawaii was a just one, a moral one, or an efficient one, is a matter which does not concern the American people. We have no more right to overthrow a monarchy in Hawaii because it does not conform to our ideas of a just government, than we have to overthrow a monarchy in Canada or Great Britain, or Russia or Turkey, or Spain or elsewhere.
But it is alleged that the presence of the United States forces on shore was necessary to the protection of American life and property. This claim can only be supported upon the assumption that American citizens were actually in danger in their persons and in their property while peacefully pursuing their business there. If American citizens were interfering with the local government and using their influence to overthrow it, they had no right to claim the protection of American forces in this unlawful and revolutionary procedure. If they were peaceable and obeying the local law they were in no danger whatever. There is not an allegation that one of the subjects of Great Britain or of France or Germany or of China or Japan or of any other government required the interposition of the armed forces of their governments for their protection, or that the property of these subjects of such governments was in any way endangered by anything that was being done at the time. It is passing strange if ours were the only foreign citizens who were endangered in their lives or their property. If the citizens of the United States who were in Honolulu at the time had been minding their own business and had kept their hands out of the affairs of the local government, they would no more have been in danger of their lives and property than were the citizens and subjects of other governments. Besides this, what injury could a weak and defenseless government, such as that of Hawaii, have inflicted upon the citizens of the United States, when all the armed forces of the monarchy did not exceed a hundred persons all told? Therefore the claim that the lives or property of American citizens were in danger is a mere pretext, having no foundation whatever in fact.
The people of the United States are not responsible for the kind of government that may be in existence in the Hawaiian Islands. Nor is it any of their concern as to whether that government deals justly with its citizens and subjects or not. Whether the government of Hawaii is a good government or a just government is a matter for the people of that island to determine for themselves. There is no divine right of republicanism in this world, any more than there is a divine right of kings. The divinity in all these matters is in the right of the people to govern themselves.
In this connection it is worthy of remark that the American minister, Mr. Blount, in his report to this government, summarized by Secretary Gresham, states that while at Honolulu he did not meet a single annexationist who expressed a willingness to submit the question of annexation to a vote of the people, nor did he talk with one on that subject who did not insist that if the Islands were annexed to the United States, suffrage should be so restricted as to give complete control to foreigners or white persons. I have, myself, on several occasions, conversed with those representing the provisional government in Washington upon this very point, and I inquired especially of them why means were not taken to submit the question to the people of Hawaii as to whether they desired to maintain the provisional government or to be annexed to the United States. In every instance I was informed that the people of the islands were not capable of self-government, and if the question were submitted to them that they would be hostile to this movement. The fact is that the people of Hawaii have never been consulted upon this subject. The so-called provisional government did not emanate from them, and does not have their sanction. It is a usurpation, which could not have had any de facto existence, to say nothing of a rightful existence, except for the presence of the overpowering armed forces of the United States. What right has a provisional government, thus established, to make a treaty with the government of the United States for the annexation of those islands to our government? Who has clothed this provisional government with authority to speak for the people they pretend to represent?
Our own right to self-government is no more sacred than the right of the handful of ignorant Hawaiians in the Sandwich Islands to govern themselves. If they prefer a monarchy, feeble and inefficient though it may be, it is their business, and not ours. But it is claimed that the provisional government is one composed of Christians, and that they are representatives of advanced Christian civilization. The United States, being a Christian nation, should sympathize with and render moral and material aid in sustaining that government and it is alleged that we have no right to consent to its overthrow. It may be conceded, for the sake of argument, that the provisional government is composed of Christians, and that it more nearly corresponds to our ideas of a just government than does the government of the monarchy, but, as suggested before, this is foreign to the controversy. We have no more right to interfere on this ground with the government of Hawaii than we have to interfere with the government of China or Japan or Turkey, none of which are Christian or administered by Christian statesmen, and none of which, we have a right to assume, are any more just to the subjects of such government than is the monarchy of Hawaii to its subjects.
Such a claim would make the United States the moral and religious arbiter of the world would constitute us self-appointed crusaders, going about the earth pulling down and destroying alleged heathen and semi-barbaric monarchies, and establishing Christian governments and civilization in their stead. This is not the mission of our government. If we have any concern as to the imperfection of these so-called barbaric governments, we may send our missionaries to them to convert them to our religion or send our statesmen among them to convince them of the superior advantages of our form of government. But to send our naval forces to the ports of other governments, to land them upon their soil, and allow them to be used for the purpose of overthrowing, in connection with foreign-born subjects or aliens, the established government, would make our Christianity a fraud and our boasted republicanism a mockery. Who would suppose for a moment that our government would have permitted such an intervention in the affairs of an island or dependence of Great Britain, or in any province owing allegiance to Great Britain, or to any other powerful government? We would not dare to assume such a role. It would be regarded as a declaration of war, and we would be compelled to withdraw our forces and apologize for our intervention.
The question is frequently asked in partisan papers: How can the monarchy be restored? Or, by what right does the government of the United States assume to reestablish a monarchy which has been overthrown? The government of the United States has no more right to establish a monarchy in Hawaii than it has to establish one in Mexico or in Central America. But it is the duty of the United States Government, when its agents and representatives have committed a wrong against the government of a friendly power, to redress that wrong, and in this case it can only be accomplished by placing the government in statu quo , or in the condition in which it was found at the time the armed forces of the United States were landed upon Hawaiian soil, and interposed in the local affairs of the monarchy. We cannot redress the wrong we have committed by merely withdrawing our forces, after they have been used for seventy-five days to suppress the existing government and establish a provisional government in its stead. We must restore to the queen her own armed forces and we must disarm the forces of the provisional government which were armed and equipped by the aid and under the protection of our navies. Anything short of this is a mockery of justice, a disgrace to our diplomacy, is unworthy of a Christian nation, and a travesty upon our devotion to the principles of local self-government.
If the restoration of the status quo , which existed prior to the landing of our forces on Hawaiian soil, should result in the restoration of the monarchy, such restoration would only demonstrate the fact that the overthrow of the monarchy was due to our intervention. If it does not result in a restoration of the monarchy, then we have washed our hands of responsibility in the matter, and have vindicated the integrity of our diplomacy and the high character of our government as one which loves justice and maintains international comity. Therefore it is not the restoration of the monarchy which is in issue, but it is the restoration of the condition which existed prior to the armed intervention of the United States. Justice requires that our government should go back thus far, and when we have thus done justice we are not responsible for the injustice that others may do. We must maintain our integrity as a nation. We must vindicate our regard for the rights of a weak and defenseless government.
One other matter is worthy of consideration, and upon that there is room for honest differences of opinion. Is it desirable that the Hawaiian Islands should be annexed to the United States? What would result from annexation? The so-called treaty which was submitted by the provisional government to the late administration of President Harrison and the Senate for its consideration, provided that our government should assume the debts of the monarchy and should grant a pension to the deposed Queen and to some members of her family. In the event of annexation the inhabitants of the islands would become citizens of the United States, unless they chose to expatriate themselves, or to continue as the subjects of a foreign government. The native Hawaiians would become citizens of the United States. They would have no place else to go for a home or for a domicile. They are ignorant of our laws, and of our institutions, and are incapable of self-government under a system such as that which we have in the United States. The laws which would be passed especially for government of the islands would be passed by the Congress of the United States and all general laws and the constitution of the United States would be over them as over other points of the United States. Laws which would be passed at Washington to govern a people who had no representation whatever in the law-making power, would have as little regard for the wishes of the people as would the laws imposed upon them by the monarchical form of government. In neither case would the people have anything to do with the making of the laws which should govern. There would be serious objections to permitting the admission of the islands into the Union as a State with two Senators and a Representative in Congress. Their civilization, their habits, their ideas of government will not assimilate with our institutions and we do not need the aid of the representatives of such a government in the councils of the nation to assist us in the solution of the governmental problems with which our people have to contend. Annexation therefore is of very doubtful expediency. What is desirable so far as these islands are concerned, and what is the interest of the United States in reference to them? It seems to me that our true interests lie in the direction of a neutral and independent government of the Hawaiian Islands a government for which we would not be responsible and which would not entitle its citizens to the protection of the government of the United States. Let them govern themselves in their own way, and as our government should maintain neutrality as to the local government of Hawaii we should insist that all other governments should maintain like neutrality and like non-intervention. The example which President Cleveland’s administration has set in reference to these islands will enable us to successfully insist that other nations shall maintain a like policy. We should regard the seizure of the government of Hawaii by any other power as casus belli and resist it accordingly. The neutrality and independence of Hawaii as to all other governments is the policy which should he maintained and insisted upon by our government. We need those islands as a coaling station for our merchant marine and our vessels of war. We need them as harbors of refuge for our commerce upon the seas. We need them as places for meeting and exchanging on the high seas our products with the products of other countries. So long as these privileges are granted to us we have no right to object to like privileges being granted to other governments. Hence it is of the highest importance to the commerce of the world and to the peace of nations that the Sandwich Islands should be guaranteed by all governments a separate and independent existence, whose advantages should be shared alike by all the nations of the world, and which should, under no circumstances, be appropriated to the exclusive use of any one of them. As believers in the superiority and efficacy of republican institutions, as compared with monarchical, we may indulge the hope that the example of our own government and the advantages of our civilization may soon induce the people of Hawaii, acting upon their own judgment and desiring to promote their own interests, to suppress their monarchy and establish in its place a republican form of government. This will require time and the education of the masses. In the near future the education necessary to fit that people for self-government will be attained. It is education and not armed intervention that will bring about the reformation which every American citizen should desire.
Additional information: The North American Review , Volume 157, Issue 445