Skip to main content

Full text of "Christianity and the race problem"

See other formats






Secretary of the International Missionary Council 
Editor of the International Review of Missions 





First Published, May 1924 

Made and Printed in Great Britain 
by Turnbull Spears , Edinburgh 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2016 with funding from 
University of Pretoria, Library Services 


r I 'HE question with which this book deals is whether 
A the Christian Church has any contribution to make 
to the solution of the problems involved in the contact of 
different races in the world today ; and if so what is the 
nature of that contribution and how it can best be made. 
The book does not attempt to make any independent 
contribution to the biological and anthropological aspects 
of race, though I have done my best to take account of the 
conclusions of modern science in regard to these matters. 
These aspects of the subject are undoubtedly important, 
but vastly more important, as I have tried to show, are 
the ethical problems which arise from the contact of races 
and which constitute a grave menace to the peace of the 
world and to the co-operation and progress of its peoples. 

It is only in wrestling with the actual conditions of 
human life that the meaning, depth and power of the 
Christian view of the world are disclosed. Any attempt 
therefore to face honestly in the light of the Christian ideal 
the grave issues to which attention is directed in the 
following pages ought to be suggestive and fruitful. What- 
ever be the shortcomings of this volume, and I have no 
doubt that they are many, the setting in juxtaposition of 
the Christian ideal for human society and the existing 
relations between different races is in itself, I hope, not 
without value. I have not come across any book in which 
this attempt has been made , 1 and I shall be amply rewarded 

1 Mr Robert E. Speer’s Of One Blood and Mr Basil Mathews’ Clash of 
Colour , which deal with the subject from a similar point of view to that 
adopted here, reached me after the manuscript had gone to press. 



if what I have written helps to direct the attention of the 
present generation studying in our colleges and universities 
to questions which I believe to be of incalculable import- 
ance for the future of Christianity and for the welfare of 
mankind. I hope also that the raising of these questions 
may lead minds abler and better equipped than mine to 
investigate them further. 

Those who have studied particular racial problems at 
first hand will not expect to find here anything new on 
questions of which they have fuller and more direct know- 
ledge ; it is rather their experience that has contributed 
what is of most value in the pages that follow. It may be, 
however, that their particular problems may receive some 
fresh illumination by being placed in a wider setting. 
Those who have to deal with difficult racial issues may draw 
some encouragement from the thought that their efforts 
to bring about understanding and goodwill have more than 
a local significance and are contributing to the solution of 
what is essentially a world-wide problem. 

I have to thank Professor J. Arthur Thomson for kindly 
reading the manuscript of Chapter IV and sending me 
valuable comments, and Mr Edwyn Bevan, Miss E. I. Black, 
Miss G. A. Gollock, the Rev. Hugh Martin, Mr H. S. L. 
Polak, and Miss M. M. Underhill for reading the manuscript 
of the book in whole or in part and for contributing sugges- 
tions on certain points. None of those named, however, have 
any responsibility for the views expressed in the following 
pages. I am indebted also to Dr W. W. Alexander 
(Atlanta), Mr Gilbert Bowles (Tokyo), Dr Sidney L. Gulick 
(New York), Mr Monroe N. Work (Tuskegee), my colleague 
Dr A. L. Warnshuis, and many other friends in different 
countries for furnishing information in conversation or by 
letter. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Miss B. D. 
Gibson who has collaborated in the collection of material 


and made many helpful suggestions, and who has seen the 
book through the press. 

This book was undertaken at the request of the United 
Council for Missionary Education and is being published 
for them by the Student Christian Movement. 

It was possible to accede to the request to write 
this book because the International Missionary Council, at 
its meeting in 1921, asked me to devote part of my 
time to the study of Christianity and racial relations. 
This gave me the opportunity of making enquiries, gather- 
ing information, and discussing the question with those 
whom I met in different countries. The opinions ex- 
pressed in this book, however, are purely my personal 
views and the International Missionary Council has no 
responsibility for them. 


April 1924 



Preface ........ vii 

Synopsis ........ xiii 


I. The Legacy of the Past and the Task of the 

Present ........ i 

II. The Christian View and its Relation to Facts . 15 

III. The Causes of Racial Antagonism ... 30 

IV. The Significance of Race ..... 46 

V. The Fact of Inequality ..... 63 

VI. The Truth of Equality ..... 80 

VII. The Ethics of Empire ...... 94 

VIII. India and the British Commonwealth . . . 108 

IX. Immigration. ....... 126 

X. Intermarriage ....... 145 

XI. Social Equality . . . . . . . 1 59 

XII. Political Equality . . . . . .176 

XIII. Population ........ 197 




XIV. Guiding Principles .... 

XV. Practical Steps ..... 

XVI. The Universal Community of the Loyal 
Index of Subjects .... 
Index of Authors Quoted . 










The Legacy of the Past and the Task of the Present 1-14 

The expansion of Europe. 

Reaction against white domination. 

The physical unification of the world. 

Its moral unity still to be achieved. 

The prevailing anarchy in western political and philosophical 
thought a grave handicap. 

Views which must lead to catastrophe. 

The necessity of seeking a better way. 


The Christian View and its Relation to Facts . . 15-29 

Relation of ultimate beliefs to our enquiry. 

Christianity primarily a religion. 

Principles which follow from its view of God — 

(1) Supremacy of moral values. 

(2) Worth of human personality. 

(3) Service. 

These principles need a basis in the constitution of the universe. 

The necessity in applying these principles of taking account of 

Facts of human nature. 

Facts of history. 

The limitations of the scientific attitude. 

Christianity a crusade. 

Idealism and realism in politics. 




The Causes of Racial Antagonism .... 

Reasons for questioning the existence of an innate antipathy 
on the ground of colour — 

(1) Absence of marked racial prejudice in children. 

(2) Communication of prejudice by social suggestion 

often observable. 

(3) Sentiment of race a modern phenomenon. 

(4) Strength of racial feeling varies with circumstances. 

(5) Illustration of complete absence in a particular 


Causes of racial antagonism — 

(1) Economic. 

(2) Political. 

(3) Differences of temperament and character. 

(4) Differences of civilization. 

(5) Feelings of superiority and inferiority. 

(6) Repugnance to intermarriage. 

Conclusion that causes of antagonism moral rather than racial. 
Effect of physical differences on racial relations. 


The Significance of Race ...... 

The claim that race is the decisive factor in human development. 
The importance of the modern study of heredity. 

(1) Weismann. 

(2) Mendel. 

(3) Galton and Pearson. 

The view that heredity is practically everything. 

On the other hand — 

(1) The theory of non-transmissibility of acquired 

characters not established beyond dispute. 

(2) Inheritance has far larger possibilities than those 

actually realized. 

(3) Biological inheritance in man profoundly modified 

by his social heritage. 

Present tendency to underestimate power of education and 
religion to mould the given element in human nature. 
Fallacy of confusing hereditary characteristics of race with 
those of a particular strain. 

Vagueness of the term ‘race.’ 







The Fact of Inequality ...... 63-79 

Ambiguity of the term * equality.’ 

Inequality in natural endowment undeniable among individuals 
and presumably to be found also among races. 

Present lack of any means of determining accurately inequalities 
in natural endowment. 

Intelligence tests — how far they carry us. 

Their application to racial differences. 

Impossibility of distinguishing what is due to native 
endowment and what to tradition. 

Races today undoubtedly at different stages of development. 

Necessity of recognizing differences. 

The question of standards. 

Western standards not the only valid ones. 


The Truth of Equality ...... 80-93 

Fundamental unity of human nature. 

Basal qualities of the human mind everywhere the same. 
Overlapping of ability between races. 

The demand for equality essentially a claim to be treated as a 
man and a protest against inequalities that hinder growth. 

The competition of life. 

Power to create a society based on justice man’s distinguishing 

Equality before the law in a large measure an actual 

Civilization at stake in the effort to extend the sphere of 

The sense in which all men are equal. 

Equality more fundamental than inequalities. 


The Ethics of Empire ....... 94-107 

The law of the stronger in history and in modern Darwinian 

Justification of the rule of advanced over backward peoples — 

(1) Claims of humanity as a whole. 

(2) Protection against exploitation. 



Growth of the sense of responsibility. 



Covenant of the League of Nations. 

Kenya White Paper. 

Two cautions — 

(1) National motives never purely philanthropic. 

(2) Weaknesses to which humanitarian movements are 


Enunciation of principles only the beginning. 

Economic interests a formidable obstacle. 

Trusteeship includes responsibility for education. 

Pitt’s great vision. 


India and the British Commonwealth . . 108-125 

Three possible developments of the relations between India 
and Great Britain. 

(1) Separation. 

Effect of separation on India. 

Motives for withdrawal on British side. 

(2) Reversion to autocratic rule. 

Impossibility of this course. 

(3) Co-operation. 

Existing pessimism in regard to its possibility. 

The problem psychological. 

Intensity and naturalness of Indian feeling. 

The British point of view. 

Each view on its own assumptions unanswerable yet 
apparently irreconcilable. 

Great Britain committed to a new purpose but the 
old habit of mind apt to persist. 

Future relations of the two peoples do not in fact 
depend on Great Britain’s will alone. 

Advantages of recognizing this. 

Even when it is recognized India’s problem remains. 

Deeper study of the conditions offers the only hope. 


Immigration ....... 126-144 

White races mainly responsible for Asiatic and African im- 
migration into western lands. 

Present exclusion policies. 




Causes of tension in regard to immigration — 

Overpopulation not a cause of emigration. 

Claim to expand into territories already settled not 

Difficulty in case of Australia. 

Discrimination the real cause of Asiatic resentment. 

Reasons for restriction of immigration — 

Maintenance of existing type of civilization. 

Maintenance of economic standards. 

Attempts to deal with the problem — 

Principle of reciprocity in British Empire. 

Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan in United States 
and Canada. 

Essential conditions of an understanding. 


Intermarriage ....... 145-158 

Biological aspects of racial intermixture. 

Causes of repugnance to inter-racial marriage. 

Objections to racial amalgamation. 

Means of maintaining racial integrity. 

Individual instances of racial intermarriage. 


Social Equality ....... 1 59—175 

Facts regarding social equality — 

(1) Oriental visitors in Europe. 

(2) French attitude. 

(3) British in India. 

(4) Jamaica and Tropical Africa. 

(5) United States. 

(6) South Africa. 

Difficulties created for a white community by the presence 
of a black population in its midst. 

Difficulties for the black people. 

Equality of opportunity with social segregation. 

This the most favoured solution. 

Difficulty of reconciling it with equal justice. 

The question which attitude is to prevail in the world. 

Necessity of task of interpretation. 




Political Equality ...... 176-196 

Survey of facts — 

(1) French policy. 

(2) Negro franchise in United States. 

(3) Asiatics in United States. 

(4) Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New 


(5) South Africa. 

(6) Kenya. 

(7) Other British Colonies. 

Grounds on which franchise is withheld — 

(1) Lack of knowledge and capacity. 

(2) Difference in tradition. 

(3) Danger to national integrity. 

On the other hand — 

(1) Capacity does not coincide with the colour line. 

(2) Those excluded from political power are without 

protection against injustice. 

(3) Arbitrary power injurious to dominant race. 

Need for deeper thought and fresh invention. 

Native Affairs Act in South Africa. 

Communal election — advantages and drawbacks. 


Population ........ 197-2 14 

Thomas Malthus. 

Fecundity of nature and of man. 

Means by which growth of population is held in check. 

Population and food supply in the world today. 

Racial distribution of the world’s population. 

Effect of population on international relations. 

Competition for access to raw materials. 

This may be aggravated by the racial factor. 

The economic struggle a stern reality but not a reason for 
abandoning the ground of Christian principle. 

Illustration of the problem on a smaller scale. 

The problem capable of solution only on the plane of spiritual 





Guiding Principles ...... 215-231 

No absolute ethical transformation but a continual wrestling 
with actual conditions. 

Three guiding principles. 

(1) Race must not be ignored or under-rated. 

(2) Race must not be allowed to obscure uniqueness and 
value of individual. 

Dehumanizing tendency of modern life. 

Relations must be those of men with men. 

Value of individual dependent on a religious view 
The Christian solution of the psychological problem. 

(3) Differences of race intended to minister to fulfilment of 

a common purpose. 

Illustration of the body. 

And of a school. 

Conversion of men’s minds the primary necessity. 

Value of national differences. 

Honourable emulation in place of jealous rivalry. 

True meaning of equality. 

Issues in the relations of races primarily not ethnological or 
biological but ethical. 

Forces on which we may rely in seeking to create a new mind. 


Practical Steps ....... 232-247 

(1) The conversion of our own minds. 

Courtesy, kindness, friendship. 

Love of justice. 

(2) Study and research. 

The picture in our minds. 

Need of a machinery of knowledge. 

The Church and social and international problems. 

Personal and impersonal aspects of modern life. 

(3) Inter-racial co-operation in counsel and action. 

Inter-racial Movement in America. 

Co-operation in South Africa. 

(4) Formation of public opinion. 


The Press. 

(5) The missionary movement. 




The Universal Community of the Loyal . . 248-265 

The final goal is far distant. 

Yet a solid reality exists in the present. 

A fellowship transcending race is an actual experience. 

(1) In science. 

(2) When danger brings out elemental human qualities. 

(3) In the service of a common task. 

The fellowship of men of goodwill is thus a fact, but this 

(1) Requires the assurance that there is something 

corresponding to it in the nature of the universe. 

(2) Needs to draw fresh life and inspiration from the 

eternal order. 

(3) Hence finds its deeper meaning and interpretation 

in the Church of Christ. 

The shortcomings of the Church, while sometimes exaggerated, 
must be recognized to be real. 

Yet the power to create the fellowship needed lies in the 
Church because of its faith. 

The Church which can provide the answer to the problems of 
race is a Church which partly is, and partly is yet to be. 

(1) It must recognize elements of truth outside the 

organized Christian society. 

(2) Must be in the mid-stream of the world’s life. 

(3) Cannot allow exclusion or separation on grounds 

of race. 

(4) Must aim at creating a universal community. 

The creation of such a fellowship possible because of what 

eternally is and of what has happened in time. 




0 understand the race problem it is necessary to take 

into account the historical causes to which it owes its 
present form. Its real nature and true dimensions become 
apparent only when the antagonisms which confront us 
today are seen to be the outcome of forces that have 
been slowly gathering momentum through the centuries 
and creating a situation which is now a menace to the 
peace of the world. 

The dominating fact in the history of mankind for the 
past four centuries has been the expansion of the peoples 
and the civilization of Europe. When the sixteenth 
century opened only part of the continent was included in 
the European system. Russia was outside, with her face 
turned to Asia rather than to Europe. South-eastern 
Europe, including a large part of Hungary, had fallen 
under the sway of the Turk. The Ottoman power was 
still in the ascendant, and its armies were soon to thunder 
before the gates of Vienna. Between Europe and the rest 
of the known world was interposed the insurmountable 
barrier of the solid block of territory under Ottoman rule. 

But already adventures had been begun which were to 
change the course of history and lead in later centuries to 
amazing consequences. Actuated by the double motive 
of proselytizing zeal and the desire of gain through the 
lucrative traffic in slaves, the Portuguese under Prince 


Henry the Navigator had in the first half of the fifteenth 
century begun the exploration of the West Coast of Africa. 
As their ships penetrated further and further down the 
coast, the dazzling prospect came into view of turning 
the flank of the Ottoman dominion and of opening up a 
new trade route to the East. Energies were redoubled, 
and before the end of the century Bartholomew Diaz had 
rounded the Cape of Good Hope, Vasco da Gama had 
landed at Calicut on the Malabar Coast of India, and 
Columbus had discovered America. 

The planting of the colonies of Virginia and Maryland 
and the Puritan settlement in New England in the seven- 
teenth century added in the course of time a whole new 
continent to the lands inhabited by the white race, and 
created a new home of European civilization. The same 
century witnessed the beginnings of European settlement 
in South Africa, the establishment of Dutch control over 
the islands of the Malay Archipelago, and the foundation 
of the East India Company in Great Britain and the 
beginning of its trading operations in India. In 1757 the 
Battle of Plassey brought Bengal under the rule of the 
East India Company, and in the course of the next hundred 
years the whole of India became politically subject to 
Great Britain. 

In the nineteenth century European expansion pro- 
ceeded with rapid strides. The population and wealth of 
the United States increased by leaps and bounds. Canada 
became a united and self-governing nation. The coloniza- 
tion of Australia added yet another continent to the home 
lands of the white race. The exploration of the interior 
of Africa was successfully undertaken, and in the latter 
half of the century almost the entire continent passed 
under the control of European powers. The Turks, before 
whom the whole of Europe had once trembled, saw their 
European dominions gradually slipping from their grasp. 
Japan sought salvation from the pressure of western 
domination by becoming a pupil of the West and assimilat- 
ing its knowledge and conforming to its standards. At 



the close of the century there was a general expectation 
of the break up of China. Foreign powers had already 
established bases on its soil, and in the view of many the 
division of the country into spheres of influence or pro- 
tectorates under foreign guidance was only a matter of 

Without arrest or interruption the process of European 
expansion had gone on with ever-increasing momentum 
for more than four hundred years. By the end of the 
nineteenth century the inhabitants of Europe had peopled 
with their stock the continents of North America and 
Australia and established a home in the southern part 
of Africa. Vigorous communities of European origin had 
been established in South America, and the continent as 
a whole had been brought under the influence of the 
political ideas and civilization of Europe. The whole of 
Africa, the populous land of India, Indo-China, the greater 
part of Malaysia and the islands of the Pacific had passed 
under the political control of western nations. The rest 
of the world acknowledged their leadership and was ready 
to accept their standards. It might be questioned how 
deeply western ideas had penetrated beneath the surface 
of the life of the peoples of Asia and Africa. But the tide 
of political power and influence had flowed century after 
century steadily and uninterruptedly in one direction. 

Since the beginning of the present century we have 
become increasingly aware that that tide has been met by 
one flowing in the opposite direction. Particular events 
are sometimes the means of drawing attention to deep and 
powerful forces that are at work beneath the surface. 
Four years before the last century closed a well-equipped 
Italian army suffered complete defeat at the hands of an 
Abyssinian force. The tide of European advance received 
at Adowa its first severe check. More startling and far- 
reaching in its influence was the defeat, eight years later, 
of the Russian armies on the Yalu by the Japanese. A thrill 
went through all Asia. No longer was the European to 
be regarded as invincible. An Asiatic people had proved its 


power to resist his advance. The day of his unquestioned 
supremacy was over. 

Then came the Great War, and Asia and Africa looked 
on or participated while the white peoples slaughtered one 
another. When the British colonies in America revolted 
against the mother country, the Comte de Vergennes, who 
directed the affairs of France in the latter part of the 
eighteenth century and who was thirsting to revenge the 
triumph of Great Britain in the Seven Years War, declared 
that ‘ France may be content to remain a spectator whilst 
Englishmen rend their own empire to pieces. Our con- 
cern in the matter is that this war should last.’ 1 So 
might have thought, so in fact did think and speak, many 
representatives of the non-European peoples as they saw 
European civilization divided against itself and compassing 
its own destruction. Not only has the strength of Europe 
been impaired by the losses of the war, but the prestige of 
western civilization has suffered serious diminution. 

It may, indeed, be questioned whether the immense 
superiority of the West over other races and civilizations 
in material power has been gravely affected even by the 
war. The economic and military predominance of western 
nations is still such as to enable them, if not divided among 
themselves, to impose their will by force on the rest of 
the world. Nevertheless a change has come over the 
situation. Force to be effective would have to be exerted 
remorselessly, and this is barred by moral scruples. Whether 
we attribute it to loss of nerve or to the growth of con- 
science, the ruthless methods of the past are no longer 
possible. Public opinion will not tolerate them. And apart 
from iron-handed repression the new forces that are stirring 
in Asia and Africa cannot be held in check. Japan is deter- 
mined to maintain at all costs the position it has won as 
a power of the first rank. In China, notwithstanding 
the political chaos, a renaissance is in process, and western 
knowledge is being rapidly assimilated. India is demanding 
self-government. The Philippines are claiming independ- 
1 Quoted by J. A. Williamson, A Short History of British Expansion, p. 446. 


ence. There is unrest in the Dutch East Indies. New 
ideas are beginning to ferment in the minds of the peoples 
of Africa. The Negro race in the United States is seeking 
larger opportunities and a fuller recognition of its claims. 
Everywhere we are confronted with a challenge to the 
position at present held by the white race. 

The ultimate political problem of the world is how the 
different races which inhabit it may live together in peace 
and harmony. The effect of the expansion of Europe, 
which has been the dominant fact in the history of the 
past four centuries, has been to make the world a unit. 
The task of exploration has been completed. The inven- 
tions of the nineteenth century and the development of 
communications resulting from them have made the whole 
world accessible. The eager search for new sources of 
wealth has resulted in a world-wide network of commercial 
organization and knit the peoples of the world together 
in a single ‘ Great Society,’ the different parts of which 
have become dependent on one another. We can hardly 
calculate the degree in which flying, wireless telegraphy 
and broadcasting, discoveries of the present century, will 
accelerate the process of unification. For better or for 
worse the various families of mankind have been bound 
together in a common life, and have to learn how to adjust 
their relations in this unified world. 

In striking contrast to this shrinkage of the world 
through the improvement of means of communication is 
the lack of any corresponding achievement in bring- 
ing about moral and spiritual unity. While physically 
the peoples of the world have been brought closer 
together, psychologically they are in danger of drifting 
further apart. New causes of antagonism have emerged. 
Attempts are being made to set up impassable barriers. 
Closer proximity and greater economic dependence on one 
another do not make it any easier for the peoples of 
the world to live together in mutual understanding and 
harmonious co-operation. Having by its enterprise, inven- 
tions and eager pursuit of wealth succeeded in making the 


world into a single whole, mankind is now confronted 
with the more difficult task of establishing a moral unity. 
This is a greater and more exacting task than that which 
has already been accomplished ; it makes higher demands 
on human nature. Yet it cannot be evaded. No one 
after the war can be blind to the fact that the powers 
which science has put into our hands can be used not only 
to further human progress but also to compass destruction 
and create desolation. Unless man can balance the 
mastery which he has obtained over the forces of nature 
by acquiring a greater control over his own passions and 
impulses and his relations with his fellow-men, the Great 
Society which the scientific discoveries of recent centuries 
have made possible must dissolve in ruin, suffering, and 
the loss of the spiritual gains which have been slowly 
and painfully accumulated by the experience, the insight 
and the genius of past generations. 

In this supreme task of establishing harmonious relations 
between the different peoples of the world and of providing 
a moral basis for the Great Society the western peoples, 
in virtue of their responsibility for existing conditions and 
of their present predominance in power, may be expected 
to lead the way. But to the question whether they possess 
the capacities required for the greater and more difficult 
task which their past achievements have imposed upon 
them, it is difficult to give a reassuring answer. 

The Italian historian, Dr Guglielmo Ferrero, recently 
drew attention 1 to the grave consequences for Europe of 
the destruction by the war of one of the two political 
principles on which the whole structure of social order 
rested. Over a great part of the continent society has 
been held together for centuries by the monarchical 
principle. The great monarchies of Europe have ceased 
to exist, and with their collapse there is a danger of society 
finding itself without any principle of authority whatsoever. 
Excepting in France and Switzerland democracy had not 
up till the war been accepted by the peoples of Europe 
1 The Atlantic Monthly, March 1921, pp. 414-21. 



as a principle of government. Deprived now of the 
monarchical principle by which they have in the past been 
held together, and left with a principle in which they 
have hitherto had no real faith, they are exposed to the 
risk of drifting without a compass, and becoming the prey 
of any adventurers who may be strong enough to impose 
their will. 

Democracy, the alternative political principle on which 
the political life of western nations has been built, has 
passed successfully through the searching test of a great 
war, but it no longer arouses the enthusiasm which it once 
did, nor is it accepted with the same unquestioning faith. 
It has been contemptuously repudiated in Russia. Scorn 
has been poured upon it in Italy. Even in the countries 
in which it seems securely established, questioning and 
doubt have made themselves heard. The high hopes 
which were entertained a century ago have suffered dis- 
appointment. To transfer political power from the hands 
of a monarch or dominant class to the whole people, it 
was at that time confidently believed, would speedily 
transform society and put an end to the long reign of 
injustice and oppression from which mankind had suffered 
throughout its history. But democracy has come and has 
not accomplished what was expected of it. ‘ Some gains 
there have been,’ is the verdict of Lord Bryce at the close 
of his exhaustive review of modern democracies, ‘ but 
they have lain more in the way of destroying what was 
evil than in the creating of what is good : and the belief 
that the larger the number of those who share in governing 
the more will there be of wisdom, of self-control, of a 
fraternal and peace-loving spirit has been rudely shattered.’ 1 

The stars by which statesmen have in the past guided 
the ship of state have thus disappeared or suffered partial 
eclipse. The task of finding a way in which human beings 
may live contentedly and happily together has become, 
in consequence of the unification of the world and the 
increasing complexity of its life, more difficult, and at the 
1 James Bryce, Modern Democracies , vol. ii. p. 668. 


same time more urgent, than ever. In the principle of 
the commonwealth, a society of free men and women 
bound together in mutual service and each at once ruling 
and being ruled by all, seems to lie the one hope of the 
political future of mankind ; and the western nations in 
which this principle, however imperfectly realized, has 
been a vital and creative force have to-day the unparalleled 
opportunity — to adapt the famous utterance of Pitt — 
after saving themselves by their energy, to save the world 
by their example. This demands, however, a political 
faith stronger and far more general than yet exists, and 
a new effort of political thought to remedy the defects in 
the working of democratic institutions which experience 
has revealed and to invent new forms of organization to 
meet the needs of the complex modern world. 

Experience of popular government has made it plain 
that it can succeed only where there is a high standard of 
virtue, intelligence and public spirit. The study of political 
questions consequently forces us back on the fundamental 
question of the nature of man and what can be made of it. 
The basis of society is individual character, and the ultimate 
social and political problem is the building of character. 

The present state of the world is grave and critical 
because behind the widespread uncertainty in the western 
world regarding principles of government lies a still deeper 
questioning regarding the meaning and purpose of human 
life. Dr Ferrero, in the article already quoted, points 
out that the peril of political anarchy is all the greater 
‘ because the triumph of anarchy would be, in certain 
aspects, much more dangerous in our epoch than in the 
third century. In the third century the State and civiliza- 
tion became disorganized in the bosom of two religious 
faiths — Paganism and Christianity — which imposed bounds 
upon intellectual and moral, and indirectly upon political, 
anarchy. In those days every man had at least a certain 
number of ideas and principles which would remain 
immovable in his mind though the whole universe should 
crumble. The political anarchy that the downfall of all 



principles of authority may let loose upon Europe today 
would be added to the most complete intellectual anarchy 
that Europe has ever known.’ 

The same diagnosis of the present state of the world -f 
is given in the recently published volumes of Dr Albert 
Schweitzer’s philosophy of civilization. The fundamental 
thesis which he sets out to maintain is that ‘ our present 
entire lack of any theory of the universe ( Weltanschauung ) 
is the ultimate source of all the catastrophes and misery 
of our times,’ and that ‘only as we again succeed in attaining 
a strong and worthy theory of the universe, and find in it 
strong and worthy convictions, shall we again become 
capable of producing a new civilization.’ 1 

The problems of the Great Society which the dis- 
coveries and energies of past generations have brought 
into existence thus drive us back to the question of our 
ultimate beliefs. Peaceful and harmonious relations 
between the different races must be built on definite 
convictions regarding the meaning and purpose of life. 
The task of establishing such relations cannot be evaded 
or postponed. The unification of the world is an accom- 
plished fact. But the moral problem remains unsolved. 
Other qualities and powers are needed for its solution 
besides the energy, enterprise and invention which have 
made the world outwardly a single whole. If the work 
of the past is to be carried forward towards a truly human 
goal, if the vast powers over the forces of nature which 
man has gained are to be prevented from destroying in 
the end what they have been the means of creating, if the 
world is to have a civilization which is worthy of the name, 
we must give our thought to the spiritual foundations on 
which human society may be securely built. 

This is the more necessary since ideas are being widely 
promulgated which, if accepted, would lead directly and 
inevitably to catastrophe. Doctrines of racial domination 
are being sedulously preached by writers whose books have 

1 Albert Schweitzer, The Decay and the Restoration of Civilization, 
pp. xiv, x. 


an extensive circulation. It is claimed that the results of 
modern science justify and support such doctrines and 
make their acceptance inevitable. 

Mr Madison Grant, for example, who has himself 
published a book, The Passing of the Great Race, to propa- 
gate these ideas, in the preface which he has contributed 
to Dr Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Colour, tells us 
that the thing to be feared is the gradual extinction of the 
great Nordic race 4 with its capacity for leadership and 
fighting,’ since 4 with it would pass that which we call 
civilization.’ This disaster can in his view be averted 
only 4 if the Nordic race will gather itself together in time, 
shake off the shackles of an inveterate altruism, discard 
the vain phantom of internationalism, and reassert the 
pride of race and the right of merit to rule .’ 1 

In a still more recent book by a professor in an American 
college it is urged that a high state of civilization is 
impossible without exploitation, that the splendours of 
western civilization have been built up on the exploitation 
of the working classes and that in view of the growing 
power of these classes some other means must be found 
of preserving civilization. The way to do this is to 4 shift 
many of the burdens they have carried to the backs ’ 
of other races, and so 4 still maintain the richness and 
colourfulness of our culture.’ Such a policy of 4 intelligent 
and controlled exploitation of the backward races ’ will 
4 intensify race consciousness,’ 4 insure to the world the 
continued domination of the whites,’ and thereby also 
4 insure to the world the contributions the white race 
seems so pre-eminently able to make.’ We may thus regard 
it as a policy that 4 will make for the greater good of man- 
kind,’ and consequently as one which 4 we may be sure 
that God, who is interested in men and who desires their 
good, will approve .’ 2 

Aided by propaganda of this kind the idea that differ- 
ences between races must inevitably lead to conflict finds 

1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour, pp. xxix, xxx. 

2 C. C. Josey, Race and National Solidarity, pp. 206-7, 2 H> 217. 



an easy lodgment in men’s minds and obtrudes itself even 
into scientific discussions of race questions. Professor 
Roland B. Dixon’s Racial History of Man , for example, 
is a dispassionate and unbiassed study of skull measurements. 
Yet in the concluding pages we find a reference to the 
possibility that the yellow races may ‘ force upon the 
peoples now and for so long dominant the most terrible 
struggle for supremacy they have ever had.’ 1 Why 
should the comparison of physical traits suggest such 
a struggle ? There is no more reason to suppose that 
differences in the measurement of the skull or in the colour 
of the skin will of themselves bring about a terrible struggle 
than that my friend and I are fated to be involved in an 
implacable blood-feud because his eyes are dark and mine 
are grey. The fact that such a fear obtrudes itself into 
what should be a plain discussion of facts shows how strong 
an obsession it has already become. 

Far more dangerous is the dissemination of such ideas 
in works of fiction, the drama and the press. Here, for 
example, is an extract from an American newspaper with 
a huge circulation : 

‘ What is to protect the United States itself from the attack 
which the then great Oriental nation, embracing China, Japan, 
Korea and Eastern Siberia, may launch upon us ? The war in 
Europe, hideous as it is, is merely a family quarrel compared to the 
terrible struggle that will some day be fought to a finish between 
the white and yellow races for the domination of the world. The 
only battles which count are the battles which saved white races 
from subjugation by the yellow races, and the only thing of real 
importance today is the rescue of the white races from conditions 
which make their subjugation by the yellow races possible.’ 

This quotation is of no importance in itself. Its 
significance lies in the fact that it could be paralleled by 
hundreds of similar utterances from the columns of the 
daily press and the pages of popular fiction. Our natural 
inclination is to treat such wild statements with con- 
temptuous indifference. Yet all the time they are helping 

1 Roland B. Dixon, The Racial History of Man, p. 520. 


to create an atmosphere in which the solution of racial 
problems may become impossible. 

The views of the writers who have been quoted will 
receive examination in later chapters. For the moment 
we are concerned only with their consequences. Nothing 
can be more certain than that such doctrines will evoke 
intense bitterness and hostility in the minds of other races. 
A claim to permanent domination exclusively on the ground 
of race is bound to be resisted by other peoples with all 
their force. A thoroughgoing racialism cannot be advo- 
cated on one side without provoking an equally intense 
racial consciousness on the other. 

Nothing is more important for the future of mankind 
on this planet than to get rid of war. The means of 
destruction which modern science has placed in the hands 
of man are such that unless his fighting instincts can be 
brought under control civilization must disappear. The 
argument by which war has often been justified as nature’s 
stern method of ensuring the survival of the fittest in the 
struggle for existence has with the development of modern 
weapons lost any force it ever had. Modern war is a 
dysgenic influence. It takes its toll of the best. Qualities 
that formerly contributed to prowess have under modern 
conditions become a disadvantage ; the tall Nordic offers 
a better target and consumes more rations, and is to that 
extent less useful for military purposes than men of smaller 
size who can shoot as straight. Poison gas knows nothing 
of selection, and in its undiscriminating destruction blots 
out of existence the gifted and too rare natures on whose 
leadership progress depends. There is no more urgent or 
imperative task than to eliminate the causes which make 
for war. 

The doctrine of racialism is a force working in the 
contrary direction. It is sowing in men’s minds seeds 
which like the dragon’s teeth will reappear as armed hosts. 
In the sixteenth century men fought about religion ; 
Europe was torn by the strife between Roman Catholicism 
and Protestantism. In the nineteenth century nationality 



was the driving force in European politics. Wars of 
nationality took the place of wars of religion. The flames 
of the sentiment of nationality were fanned by the teaching 
of historians 'and the songs of poets, until in the end they 
broke out in the latest devastating conflagration. The 
human race can be saved from self-destruction only by 
regaining control over these turbulent and volcanic energies 
and directing them into safe and useful channels. In the 
meantime ideas are being insinuated into men’s minds 
which are capable of arousing still more convulsive passions. 
The writers whom we are considering vigorously denounce 
the infatuation of unrestrained nationalism and the conflicts 
to which it has led. But the ground of their objection is 
that these conflicts have injured white solidarity and 
interfered with the natural instinct of white men ‘ to 
close their ranks against the common foe .’ 1 Race, we are 
told, is more fundamental and in the long run far more 
important than nationality. In race we have the real 
and unalterable dividing line between men and touch 
something ultimate. For the old causes of division it is 
proposed to substitute one capable of provoking an even 
more intense bitterness. For where wide differences of 
race and civilization exist, suspicion of what is unfamiliar 
and strange has the power to stimulate and inflame 
the passions of hatred and fear. In the past Europe has 
been chastised with the whips of nationalism, in the future 
the world is to be chastised with the scorpions of racialism. 

It is a merit of Dr Josey’s Race and National Solidarity 
that he goes straight to the root of the trouble, which is 
that the western mind is divided against itself. The western 
peoples have, on the one hand, visions of ascendency in- 
herited from the older conceptions of imperialism, which 
lead them to make spasmodic efforts to assert their 
supremacy by force ; while, on the other hand, there are 
struggling in their minds ideals of justice and humanity 

1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour, p. 198 ft'. Cf. his New 
IVorld of Islam , p. 132 fF. ; and C. C. Josey, Race and National Solidarity , 

p. 50 ft. 


which prevent them from carrying the policy of force 
through to the end. They are halting between these two 
conceptions, reluctant to commit themselves unreservedly 
to either. Dr Josey is right in holding that the first 
necessity is to clear up this uncertainty. He proposes to 
get rid of it by brushing all scruples aside and boldly adopting 
a policy of domination. He has rendered a real service in 
thus clarifying the issues. He has forced us to face the 
question whether the policy of domination, consistently 
carried out, is a choice that is open to us. The policy 
might conceivably succeed, but only on one condition — 
that when the need arises, it is carried out to the end, even 
if this means extermination. Only at this price can we be 
certain of overcoming the resistance that would undoubtedly 
be offered. Only by willingness to have recourse when 
necessary to such extreme measures can the insurgent 
forces of life be permanently repressed. The coloured 
peoples are two and a half times as numerous as the white. 
Their extermination is not contemplated by any sane mind, 
and the task of holding them down by force would be too 
exhausting even for a united West. The choice recom- 
mended by Dr Josey would lead inevitably to incessant 
friction and conflict that would disastrously clog the wheels 
of progress and perhaps in the end destroy civilization. 

The writers who have been quoted have directed 
attention to real and grave problems. The issues they 
have raised must not be shirked. But their conclusions 
are impossible. It is necessary to inquire whether there 
is not some better way. 



' | V HE question with which this book is primarily con- 
cerned is what attitude Christians, because they are 
Christians, ought to take in regard to racial issues and what 
they can contribute to the improvement of existing relations 
between the different races. In our study we shall have 
to take account of the biological, political, economic and 
other aspects of the problem. It will be our aim to see 
facts as they are and to welcome all the light which the 
sciences, both natural and social, can shed upon them. 
But it is no abandonment of an impartial and scientific 
attitude towards facts to recognize that our final attitude 
to them is determined by our scale of values and our 
ultimate beliefs. In a good many books on the subject 
the issues are confused by failure to distinguish between 
the scientific facts and judgments regarding the facts 
which arise out of the convictions or the prejudices of the 
author. Christians, like everyone else, approach the facts 
with certain presuppositions. These need not prevent us 
from seeing the facts clearly nor from giving them full 
weight in our conclusions. But as Christians we have 
certain convictions in the light of which we propose to 
estimate and value the facts which we shall study, and to 
determine our attitude towards them. Both with a view 
to the clearness of our own thought, therefore, and for 
the benefit of those who may wish to differ from our 
conclusions, it is well that we should set down at the outset 
of our enquiry the ultimate Christian beliefs in the light 
of which our judgments must be formed. 

This is the more necessary, since many thoughtful and 



serious minds are deliberately turning aside from Christi- 
anity because they feel that it has no contribution of great 
moment to make to the solution of the problems of the 
modern world. Christianity has to meet a definite challenge. 
What does it count for in face of such a situation as was 
portrayed in the opening chapter of this book ? 

Mr Graham Wallas is one of the most original and 
influential thinkers of our time, and in his writings the 
warmth of his sympathy with his fellow-men is as manifest 
as the width of his knowledge. In the latest of the three 
volumes — Human Nature in Politics, The Great Society, 
and Our Social Heritage — in which he has discussed the 
problems of human society as it exists today, he asks the 
question, whether our social heritage, on which we have 
become dependent for our very existence, is capable of 
withstanding the strain and shocks to which it is exposed. 
It is obvious that the whole future of mankind turns on 
the answer to this question. Mr Wallas examines existing 
forms of thought and the social and political expedients 
relied upon at present, and finds no ground for confidence 
that they are adequate, even when taken altogether, to 
preserve us against even worse disasters than those from 
which we are now suffering. He turns therefore in the 
two concluding chapters of his book to consider two world 
outlooks-^-those of science and of the tradition embodied 
in the organization of the Christian Church — to see whether 
they justify the claim made by each that they can so pene- 
trate and illuminate human thought and action as to make 
a good life possible for all mankind. Basing his judgment 
largely on pronouncements by Christian leaders during 
the war, Mr Wallas reaches the conclusion that Christianity 
has no clear guidance to offer in regard to the ‘ long-range 
ethical problems which involve different social or racial 
groups with different ethical customs, or in new problems 
which have not yet become questions of custom,’ and his 
book ends by recording a conviction which swept over him 
on Armistice Day, that ‘ the special task of our generation 
might be so to work and think as to be able to hand on to 



the boys and girls who, fifty years hence, at some other 
turning-point of world-history, may gather in the schools, 
the heritage of a world-outlook deeper and wider and more 
helpful than that of modern Christendom.’ 1 

There are two questions involved in this challenge. 
The first is whether Christianity possesses a world-view 
that is satisfying and helpful in dealing with the 4 long- 
range ’ ethical problems which are characteristic of our 
time ; and the second, whether the Christian Church has 
succeeded in expressing, or is capable of expressing, that 
view in such a way as to make it tell. 

Before we attempt to lay down the principles by which 
as guiding stars the judgments and conduct of Christians 
must be determined, we must remind ourselves that 
Christianity is first and foremost not a code of morality 
but a religion. While in ethics and politics we are 
concerned with what we ought to do and how we are to 
organize human society, religion affirms the existence of a 
reality, independent of and greater than man. It 4 has ever 
to do,’ as has been well said, 4 not with human thoughts, 
but with Realities other and higher than man ; not with 
the production of what ought to be, but with fear, pro- 
pitiation, love, adoration of what already is .’ 2 Its concern 
is with the unseen, the infinite, the eternal — with God. 
To Jesus God was everything and the world but dust in 
the balance. 

Christianity, further, is not primarily a command but a 
Gospel. It is good news about God. It reveals what 
God is like. It tells us that He is love. It bids us recog- 
nize His character in One who came not to be ministered 
unto but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many. 
Whether the world is in truth such a world as Christianity 
declares it to be is a question of fact. Religion in its 
historical forms, as Professor Hocking has pointed out, 
deals with facts. 4 Its function is not to prove God but 

1 Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, pp. 240, 271, 284. 

2 Baron Friedrich von Htigel, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy oj 
Religion, p. 23. 



to announce God. For this reason, its doctrine is stated 
as dogma ; and the fundamental dogma of religion is Ecce 
Deus, Behold, This is God.’ 1 The Christian revelation of 
God, it must be noted, makes its appeal not merely to the 
intellect of man but to his complete personality. £ A 
revelation which exhibits God as loving us, and demanding 
our response to his love, plainly is addressed to the 
emotions and the will. These indeed are only functions of 
one indivisible personality, and cannot act without the 
concurrence of the intellect ; the intellect must interpret 
the terms of the revelation, and make its meaning clear ; 
but the emotions and the will must be the dominant factors 
in determining its truth.’ 2 

Whether the Christian view is true or not cannot be 
argued here, nor can it, I think, be established by 
argument. Each man must live by what he has himself 
seen. There are plenty of facts which seem to contradict 
the Christian assertion. Yet notwithstanding these facts, 
multitudes of men and women through the centuries 
coming face to face with Jesus Christ as He is presented 
in the New Testament or manifested in the Christian 
Society have recognized God, and the experience of life 
has confirmed and justified the trust they have placed 
in Him. 

From the Christian view of God certain consequences 
in regard to the relation of man with man inevitably 
follow. For our present purpose it will be sufficient to 
refer to three. 

First, the Christian’s business is to seek first the King- 
dom of God and His righteousness. He is dedicated to the 
service of a God who is overflowingly alive and who has a 
definite moral purpose for the world. In the light of 
that commanding, universal purpose of righteousness and 
love, natural differences which exist among men become 
insignificant. Moral values are supreme. ‘ Whosoever shall 

1 William Ernest Hocking, Human Nature aud its Remaking, pp. 40 1 , 40 3 . 
(Revised Edition, pp. 425, 427.) 

2 J. R. Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, pp. 185-6. 


l 9 

do the will of God,’ Jesus said, ‘ the same is My brother and 
sister and mother,’ thereby making the basis of the society 
which He founded independent of men’s physical origin and 
natural affinities. God has no favourites. In every nation, 
as the early Church quickly realized, a man who worships 
God and orders his life aright is accepted by Him ; and what 
God approves, man dare not reject . 1 The partition wall 
which separated Jew and Gentile was broken down. On 
this issue St Paul fought a lifelong battle and would accept 
no compromise, for in it, as he saw, the whole Christian 
faith was at stake. 

Secondly, God’s love for men gives to each human 
personality an inestimable worth. It is true that it is to 
the spiritual nature of man that Christianity assigns this 
transcendent value, and that in anticipation of a speedy 
end of the world the early Christians looked on temporal 
conditions, including even the institution of slavery, as 
matters of comparative indifference. But Jesus Christ 
drew no sharp distinction between men’s bodies and souls. 
In the brief period in which His mission was accomplished, 
He thought it worth while to devote His energies and His 
time as earnestly to healing men’s bodies as to saving their 
souls. It was the man as a whole who was the object of 
His love and interest. As the lilies of the field excited His 
admiration and the birds of the air awakened His com- 
passion, so the particular men and women whom He met, 
with their individual appeal and attraction, evoked His 
interest and called forth His sympathy and help. This 
revelation of the value of the individual in God’s sight 
evoked that enthusiasm for humanity which characterized 
early Christianity. 

Apart from the Christian belief in a personal God and 
His love for men, it is not easy to attach a high value to 
each individual life. From the naturalist standpoint life is 
plentiful and cheap. Nature is prolific and seems to care 
little for the individual. Modern industrialism and mili- 
tarism lump men in the mass as ‘ hands ’ and ‘ cannon- 
1 Acts x. 35, 15. 


fodder.’ It is worth while on this point to quote the late 
Professor Ernst Troeltsch. In his monumental study of 
the social teachings of the Christian Churches, he asks in 
the concluding section whether the exhaustive historical 
survey yields any results of enduring value and furnishes 
any insights that may guide us in the present and future. 
The first conclusion to which he is led is that ‘ the Christian 
ethos alone, in virtue of its belief in a personal God, possesses 
an idea of personality and individuality which has a meta- 
physical basis and is proof against every attack of naturalism 
or pessimism. Only the personality which, transcending 
the purely natural, comes into existence through the union 
of the will and of the whole being with God is raised above 
the finite and can defy it.’ 1 

Thirdly, since God loves men and seeks their good, 
Christians are dedicated to the service of their fellow-men. 
The love of Christ becomes a constraining motive. Life 
becomes a mission, a call to uncalculating service. This 
love, since it is divine, surmounts all barriers. 

These principles of conduct by which the attitude 
of Christians must be governed — the supremacy of moral 
values, reverence for human personality and the dedication 
of life to the service of mankind — are, we may thankfully 
recognize, accepted to-day by many who do not profess 
and call themselves Christians. Large numbers outside 
the Christian Church share the conviction that in the 
more determined application of these conceptions to the 
life of the world lies the only hope of saving human society 
from complete collapse. But it makes an immense differ- 
ence whether we look on these conceptions as expressing 
merely our own aspirations and desires, or whether we 
believe that there is something in the universe which 
corresponds with them and lends them support. Lord 
Balfour in his Gifford Lectures gives expression to the 
doubt whether the position of those who accept, broadly 
speaking, Christian ethics, while rejecting the Christian, or 
any other form of theology, is permanently tenable. 

1 Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der chr'utlichen Kirchen, p. 978. 



Christian morality is a challenge to those tremendous 
cosmic forces by which, as science tells us, human life was 
brought into existence and given its form and shape. In 
that defiance of ‘ nature ’ has lain man’s chief glory and 
the secret of his noblest achievements in the past. But 
‘ is it possible,’ Lord Balfour pertinently asks, ‘ for the 
ordinary man to maintain undimmed his altruistic ideals 
if he thinks Nature is against them — unless, indeed, he 
also believes that God is on their side ? ’ 1 

Christianity assures us that our ideals are not simply 
our ideals but the purpose of God. Before calling us to 
work for them it bids us find them in the heart of the 
universe. The Christian religion is ‘ the spirit which 
perceives itself to be “ not alone,” but lovingly befriended 
and supported, extending its intuitions to the heart of the 
world, to the core of reality, and finding there the fellow- 
ship, the loyalty, the powerful response, the love, of which 
the finest fellowships and loyalties of earth are the shadows 
and the foretaste .’ 2 

What Christianity gives us, then, for our help and 
guidance in dealing with the problems that will come 
before us is certain fundamental beliefs regarding the 
meaning and purpose of life. It does not furnish any 
explicit direction in regard to the problems of race and 
nationality. For the first Christians, who lived in expecta- 
tion of the immediate second coming of Christ, these 
problems did not exist. This expectation was itself only 
one expression of the overwhelming predominance in the 
New Testament of the purely religious motive, in the 
presence of which all earthly and temporal distinctions 
faded into insignificance. The New Testament contains no 
social programme. No programme adapted to the simpler 
conditions of New Testament times could have had any 
application to the conditions of the world today resulting 
from the growth of capitalism and an industrial proletariat, 
the formation of modern bureaucratic and militarized 

1 A. J. Balfour, Theism and Humanism, pp. 120-1. 

2 L. P. Jacks, Religious Perplexities, p. 92. 


states, and the endless complexity and ramifications of 
international commerce. 

But while we do not find in the New Testament 
any explicit direction for dealing with the ethical problems 
of the modern world, this does not mean that Christianity 
has no important contribution to make to the solution of 
these problems. On the contrary its contribution is one 
of incalculable value. It sets before our eyes in all our 
social living and striving — to borrow once more the language 
of Professor Troeltsch, ‘ a goal which lies beyond all the 
relativities of our earthly existence and in comparison 
with which everything else represents only approximate 
values.’ The thought of the future Kingdom of God 
4 does not, as some short-sighted critics suppose, deprive 
the world and life in the world of their significance, but 
stretches man’s powers, and through all its stages of pro- 
gression strengthens the soul in the certainty of a final, 
future, absolute meaning and goal of human toil. It lifts 
man above the world without denying the world. This 
deepest thought and meaning of all Christian asceticism is 
the only means of keeping alive vigour and heroism in the 
midst of a spiritual situation which tends so immeasurably 
to deepen and refine the life of feeling and to destroy 
irretrievably the natural motives of heroism.’ 1 And in 
addition to this the Christian view supplies here and now 
an outlook, a temper, a spirit which more than anything 
else is capable of bringing harmony into the relations of 
men with one another. Every problem which we shall 
consider would be immediately transformed if there were 
general agreement that the only way to settle it was to 
settle it on the basis of right, and if all concerned in it 
were animated by the spirit of reverence for man and by 
the desire to serve. 

These convictions regarding the ultimate values of life do 
not stand in the way of our taking a cool, detached and im- 
partial view of the facts involved in these relations. Indeed, 
no one should be so eager as the Christian, who believes 

1 Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen, p. 979. 


2 3 

the world to be God’s world, to know that world as it 
actually is. 

Account must be taken of the facts of human nature. 
Whatever light biological and anthropological science can 
shed on them is to be welcomed. If physical and mental 
differences exist between the various races the more we 
can know about them the better. If it is assumed that a 
particular quality or capacity is there when it is not there, 
or that it is absent when in reality it is present, arrange- 
ments made on this mistaken assumption will inevitably 
suffer shipwreck. It might help to cool the passions 
aroused in controversies regarding the capacities of different 
races, if the disputants would remember that vehement 
assertions on one side or the other make not the slightest 
difference ; the last word lies with the facts. 

Just as little can we afford to shut our eyes to the facts 
of history. Into the making of races as they are found in 
the world today have gone the slow and silent influences 
of soil and climate, the toil, struggles, adventures, hero- 
isms, sufferings, discoveries, insights and creative efforts 
of successive generations. What centuries have built can- 
not be treated as if it did not exist. 

Viewed from the purely religious standpoint, and in 
the light of eternity, race and nationality are of negligible 
importance ; but from the temporal standpoint and in 
relation to the course of this world they are of immense 
significance. In the political sphere they are factors that 
cannot be neglected. A cosmopolitanism or international- 
ism which takes no account of them must come to grief 
on the rock of reality. Humanity exists only in the endless 
diversities of its component parts, each with its separate 
history, traditions, customs, institutions and civilization. 
The individual life must everywhere strike its roots into 
some particular soil and derive from some particular en- 
vironment the nurture that it needs. 

Again, in particular controversies that may arise, 
ascertainment of the facts is a first step towards a solution. 
In many instances half, or even nine-tenths, of the trouble 


is due to ignorance of the facts. No amount of goodwill 
can set matters right if the attempted solution fails to 
take account of essential factors in the situation. 

Mr Graham Wallas has shown how in politics, as in 
economics, quantitative methods are being increasingly- 
substituted for abstract conceptions and untried generaliza- 
tions. There was a time, he reminds us, when ‘ questions 
for which we now rely entirely on official statistics were 
discussed by the ordinary political methods of agitation 
and advocacy. In the earlier years of George the Third’s 
reign, when population in England was, as we now know, 
rising with unprecedented rapidity, the question of fact 
whether it was rising or falling led to embittered political 
controversy.’ 1 Anyone who has followed racial contro- 
versies in recent years must have observed how much 
unnecessary heat has been expended and ink and paper 
wasted on questions which were simply questions of fact 
that could be determined beyond dispute by proper 
enquiry ; for example, the extent of Indian immigration 
into Kenya or of Japanese immigration into California. 
But the quantitative method has wider application than 
to such matters as these. When sweeping assertions are 
made, for example, regarding the capacities or qualities 
or intentions of another people, we ought to insist on 
knowing to what proportion of the people and in what 
circumstances the statements apply. As is being increas- 
ingly recognized in industrial affairs, so in international 
and inter-racial relations a vast amount of misunder- 
standing and friction would be removed by the simple 
expedient of establishing the facts. And if the facts are 
to be accepted by both parties as a basis for discussion, it 
is obviously necessary that they should be collected and 
set forth by a body in which both have confidence and, 
as a rule, on which both are represented. 

Yet it must all the time be borne in mind that know- 
ledge of the facts is sought for the purpose of action. 
The scientific attitude of mind has its limitations and dangers. 

1 Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics , pp. 138-66, 245. 



Modern habits of thought have been profoundly influ- 
enced by the historical method. It has become usual to 
view ideas and institutions in the light of their origin and 
growth. To this method we owe a much deeper under- 
standing of the world in which we live. But, as Professor 
A. V. Dicey has pointed out, the historical spirit, and still 
more the turn of mind to which it gives rise, may prove 
the enemy of progress and reform. ‘ As research becomes 
more important than reform,’ he reminds us, ‘ the faith 
that legislation is the noblest of human pursuits falls 
naturally into the background, and suffers diminution. 
By this change science may gain, but zeal for advancing 
the happiness of mankind grows cool.’ It may be a fault 
of liberalism to emphasize too exclusively the character- 
istics which are common to all men, but ‘historical research, 
especially if it be carried back to, or even beyond, 
the earliest states of civilization, brings into prominence 
and exaggerates the dissimilarities between different classes 
and especially between different races of mankind,’ and 
thereby is in danger of quenching the confident enthusiasm 
necessary for carrying out even the most beneficial reforms. 
And he adds in a footnote a significant illustration. ‘ The 
abolition of Negro slavery was not only justified but 
absolutely required by the principle of utility and by the 
conscience of mankind ; for Negro slavery was a disgrace 
to civilization and an obstacle to progress. But could 
the Abolitionists either in England or in the United States 
have fought with success their desperate battle against 
oppression had they not been strengthened by an un- 
swerving faith in the essential similarity and equality of 
all human beings whether blacks or whites ? ’ 1 

A similar danger lies in the application of psychological 
methods to the study of social problems. The language of 
psychological science has been made familiar by its use in 
the press and in popular literature, and its results, real or 
supposed, are apt to create a feeling of helplessness. An 
undesirable state of affairs is explained as the result of 
1 A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, pp. 459, 461. 


‘ mass psychology,’ and is assumed therefore to be unalter- 
able. There is enough laziness and cowardice in most of 
us to make us secretly welcome any plausible excuse for 
leaving things as they are. 

But the scientific way of looking at things, immense as 
are the services it has rendered, does not express the whole 
nor the deepest truth about man. We are here not merely 
to know but to act. Modern psychology has made it 
plain that the cognitive elements in man’s nature are 
subordinate to the impulsive and conative, that the 
whole intellectual apparatus from its first beginnings to its 
highest achievements exists for the purpose of action. 
‘ Certain it is,’ writes William James, ‘ that the acutest 
theories, the greatest intellectual power, the most elaborate 
education, are a sheer mockery when, as too often happens, 
they feed mean motives and a nerveless will. And it is 
equally certain that a resolute moral energy, no matter 
how inarticulate or unequipped with learning its owner 
may be, extorts from us a respect we should never pay 
were we not satisfied that the essential root of human 
personality lay there.’ 1 

Christianity is not primarily a philosophy but a crusade. 
As Christ was sent by the Father, so He sends His disciples 
to set up in the world the Kingdom of God. His coming 
was a declaration of war — a war to the death against the 
powers of darkness. He was manifested to destroy the 
works of the devil. Hence when Christians find in the 
world a state of things that is not in accord with the 
truth which they have learned from Christ, their concern 
is not that it should be explained but that it should be 
ended. In that temper we must approach everything in 
the relations between races that cannot be reconciled with 
the Christian ideal. 

In the endeavour to apply Christian principles to 
public affairs we find ourselves involved in the conflict 
between two views which are frequently described by the 
terms idealism and realism. To discuss these conceptions 
1 William James, The Will to Believe , pp. 141-2. 


2 7 

of policy in the abstract is futile. To the question whether 
the idealist or the realist in politics is right the only possible 
answer is both. We cannot afford to lose sight either of 
our ideals or of the facts. 

There are those who in their haste and impatience to 
establish a better order imagine the world to be what 
they would like it to be. They refuse to look at unpleasant 
and inconvenient facts. They shut their eyes to the 
stubbornness of human nature in the mass. They do not 
recognize the powerlessness of a formula to effect a change 
in vast multitudes whose ways of thinking and feeling 
have been formed by influences operating through count- 
less generations, creatures of habit, bound by custom, 
steeped in prejudices, influenced in their actions far less 
by rational considerations than by deep-seated, inherited 
instincts, impulses and desires. They fail to distinguish 
between the goal and the long, slow and painful steps by 
which it must be reached, and grasp at great ends without 
consideration of the means which are indispensable for 
achieving them. They wish immediately to make their 
ideas prevail, forgetting that nothing that is imposed on 
men can last, but only what they freely accept, and that 
it is only by the gradual, divine and costly process of 
education that truth wins its way in the world and trans- 
forms human life into something higher and better. 

On the other hand, there are those who claim to be 
realists and insist on taking account of the facts. But 
very often the facts of which they wish account to 
be taken are only some of the facts, and not the most 
important facts. Those who call themselves realists are 
apt to make the mistake of unduly simplifying human 
motive. They assume, for example, that all men are 
actuated by fear, and forget that forces driven under- 
ground by repression may smoulder there to burst forth 
later in uncontrollable violence ; or they base their 
calculations on the belief that men always seek their own 
advantage, which is a demonstrably incomplete account 
of human nature. 


An illustration of the mistakes into which those who 
pride themselves on being realists may fall is furnished 
by the history of factory legislation in England. En- 
deavours to mitigate the abuses connected with the 
growth of factory life were resisted on the ground that 
though the lot of the workers was hard, any attempt to 
improve it would make it impossible to meet foreign 
competition, would drive capital away from the country 
and so increase in the end the distress and misery of the 
workers. To these assertions of inexorable law and un- 
alterable fact Lord Ashley, subsequently Earl of Shaftesbury, 
opposed the certainties of his Christian conscience that it 
was not to be endured that small children should have to 
work more than ten hours a day and that young boys at 
the risk of their health and lives should have to climb 
chimneys which could be equally well, or at comparatively 
small cost of reconstruction, cleaned by machinery. The 
event proved him to be the true realist. It was publicly 
admitted in later years by his leading opponents that 
he had been in the right, and that so far from the manu- 
facturing interests suffering through the reforms their 
effect had been beneficial. 1 He was right because his 
enlightened Christian conscience enabled him to see more 
deeply into the truth of things than those of his contem- 
poraries who were blinded by mistaken economic theory. 

It is a false view of reality, again, which ignores the 
power of fair-dealing, conciliation, sympathy and generosity 
to produce a new atmosphere and thereby wholly to 
transform a situation. No public man has ever insisted 
more strenuously than Edmund Burke on the necessity of 
taking account of historic fact. Yet it was Burke who 
denounced the ‘ profane herd of those vulgar and mechani- 
cal politicians . . . who think that nothing exists but 
what is gross and material ’ ; and who, appealing to those 
‘ ruling and master principles, which . . . are in truth 
every thing, and all in all,’ declared that ‘ magnanimity in 
politics is not seldom the truest wisdom,’ and ‘a great 
1 J. L. and Barbara Hammond, Lord Shaftesbury, p. 151. 



empire and little minds go ill together.’ 1 Goodwill is 
a creative force. Faith and trust have the power to bring 
about their own verification. Things become possible 
when men believe them to be possible. It is impossible 
to set fixed limits to what a people may do. The way 
they will act depends very largely on the kind of leaders 
they have and the ideals those leaders set before them. 
These truths are just as much a part of reality as those 
lower impulses of human nature to which realists pride 
themselves on giving full recognition. 

The question to be decided, then, is not whether we 
shall have regard to facts. We cannot be too patient 
and exact in ascertaining, sifting and weighing facts. The 
questions that are really significant are two. The first is 
what relative weight we attach to the different facts and 
by what standards, values, and ultimate beliefs we pass 
judgment on them ; and the second whether, when the 
facts are opposed to what we believe to be the will of 
God, we accept them as inevitable and unalterable or set 
to work with energy and patience to transform them. 

Mr Edgar Gardner Murphy, whose book, Bhe Basis 
of Ascendancy , is perhaps the most penetrating study of 
the Negro question in the United States that has yet been 
written, recognizes that the crucial issue is the one that 
has just been stated. ‘ Shall the principles ’ of the policy 
of the State, he asks, c in relation to its weaker racial 
or social groups, be repressive or constructive ? That, I 
cannot but think, is the real question. It is because 
this question has seemed to me so fundamental and so 
definitive in its nature that many of the technical issues 
of ethnology, and many of our controversial discussions as 
to the ultimate significance of “ race ” have seemed to 
me comparatively irrelevant.’ 2 

1 Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America, Speeches (Long- 
man 1816), vol. i. p. 337. 

2 Edgar Gardner Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. xii. 



' I 'HE question which will occupy us in the present 
chapter has been well stated by Mr Graham Wallas. 
‘ The future peace of the world,’ he tells us, £ largely turns 
on the question whether we have, as is sometimes said and 
often assumed, an instinctive affection for those human 
beings whose features and colour are like our own, com- 
bined with an instinctive hatred for those who are unlike 
us.’ The answer to this fundamental question which he 
tentatively gives is that the ‘ strong and apparently simple 
cases of racial hatred and affection which can certainly be 
found, are not instances of a specific and universal instinct 
but the result of several distinct and comparatively weak 
instincts combined and heightened by habit and associa- 
tion.’ 1 I believe this to be the true answer. 

There is no question that racial prejudice exists. It is 
a sinister fact in the life of the world to-day. Racial 
hatred is being loudly preached by white, yellow, brown 
and black alike. Mr Putnam Weale, whose views differ 
widely from those put forward here, is probably not far 
wrong when he speaks of a majority of white men 
‘ possessing definite and unalterable opinions on the question 
of colour .’ 2 And we need not disagree with him when he 
tells us that ‘ the individual who refuses to see things as 
they still appear to the mass of his countrymen, and who 
simply argues academically on all so-called colour questions 
without considering those vital prejudices, is not worthy 
of being read.’ 3 

1 Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics (Third Edition), p. 55. 

2 B. L. Putnam Weale, The Conflict of Colour , p. 226. 

3 Ibid. p. 187. 




The last thing I wish to do is to under-estimate or 
minimize the strength of these prejudices. The danger 
rather is that we should fail to realize their gravity. 
Accepting them as a fact of immense significance, our 
object is to try to discover the causes which give rise to 
them, in order that having done so we may endeavour 
with greater hope of success gradually to overcome them. 
Granted that dislike of persons belonging to a different 
race may when fully developed, and often does, operate 
with all the force of a powerful instinct, it is still 
possible that these strong feelings may have their origin 
and true explanation in causes that are not primarily 

It is a striking fact that young children seldom show 
any sign of race or colour prejudice. If, as some writers 
maintain, 4 there exists a widespread racial antipathy 
founded on colour — an animal-like instinct if you will, 
but an instinct which must remain in existence until 
the world becomes Utopia,’ and which must always 4 forbid 
really frank intercourse and equal treatment ,’ 1 or if racial 
antagonisms are 4 deeply situated in the primitive organiza- 
tion of the human brain ,’ 2 we should expect to find some 
manifestations of this instinct among children. White 
children in the Southern States of America will go to their 
black nurse and in the East to their Indian ayah as readily, 
and be as happy with them, as with an American or English 
nurse. A friend in India told me that his children, aged 
three and five, on their first visit to India would play with 
equal readiness with the children of his European colleague 
next door and with those of the Indian sweeper ; they 
made no discrimination of any kind. 

I do not deny that children confronted for the first 
time with unfamiliar features or colour may experience an 
instinctive shrinking, just as they are apt to do on coming 
into contact with some abnormal peculiarity in a person 

1 B. L. Putnam Weale, The Conflict of Colour , p. 1 10. 

2 Arthur Keith, Nationality and Race (Robert Boyle Lecture, 1919), 
p. 17. 


belonging to their own race. A friend who is singularly 
free from colour prejudice told me that he remembers a 
Negro coming to luncheon with his parents when he was 
a child of five, and his own reluctance to shake hands 
with him, because he feared that some of the black would 
come off ; and how he was reproved for wiping his hand 
afterwards on the table-cloth. But whereas in other 
instances the whole effect of education is to overcome 
and eliminate the natural instinctive shrinking of children 
from any unfamiliar feature, in the case of colour feeling 
the tendency of education is to foster and increase it 
artificially. Where the environment does not have this 
effect, the first instinctive shrinking, if it is felt at all, 
quickly passes, as the instances quoted show. 

Mr Benjamin Kidd, in his book The Science of Power, 
describes a number of experiments on young animals 
that show the absence of any inborn, instinctive fear of 
the natural enemies which are regarded with fear and 
terror by the adult members of the species. Young wild 
hares and wild rabbits showed no inborn fear of either 
dogs or cats, and 4 became as friendly and playful from the 
beginning with specially trained cats, to which they were 
introduced, as if they had been all of the same species.’ 
On one occasion he came on a nest of wild duck. The 
mother duck flew off, and Mr Kidd stood for some time 
watching the young birds. They exhibited not the slightest 
fear of him, nestling from time to time on his feet and look- 
ing up to him as ‘ a natural guardian.’ The mother bird re- 
turned. 4 The little ducks rushed towards her as she called. 
I could observe her. She was chattering with emotion. 
Every feather was quivering with excitement. The Great 
Terror of Man was upon her. After a short interval 
I advanced towards the group again. The mother bird 
flew away with a series of loud warning quacks. The little 
ones scattered to cover, flapping their short wing stumps, 
and with beaks wide open cheeping in terror. With 
difficulty I found one of them again in hiding. It was now 
a wild, transformed creature trembling in panic which 



could not be subdued.’ 1 I have myself had a somewhat 
similar experience with young birds in a Highland glen. 
While we were standing with our bicycles, three or four 
young birds flew across from a neighbouring tree and 
perched on the handle-bars. For two or three minutes 
they were as happy as could be. Then the mother bird 
returned to the tree, and quite obviously told them that 
they were in grave danger. They immediately took alarm 
and flew away. These illustrations show that emotions 
which have all the appearance of being instinctive may 
have their real origin in experiences that are socially 
transmitted. The observation of children strongly suggests 
that colour prejudice is not instinctive but a similar 
instance of acquired meaning. The remark of a southern 
white man, quoted to me by a friend in the United States, 
is significant in this connexion — £ I ain’t got anything 
against niggers ; 1 was fourteen years o Id before I knowed 
I was better than a nigger . ’ 

We are led to the same conclusion by observing that 
individuals who have been quite free from racial prejudice 
very often rapidly acquire it when they move into a new 
environment where it is prevalent, or come under the 
influence of those in whom it is strong. An Englishman 
of philanthropic disposition may for years in England have 
shown an interest in Negroes, receiving them into his 
home and treating them without any discrimination, and 
yet if he emigrates to South Africa may, within a few 
months, take on completely the prevailing tone and senti- 
ment. A freshman comes up to an English university 
and for the first few days behaves to an Indian fellow- 
undergraduate exactly as he does to any other ; but within 
a week he learns that in his set that is not done, and this 
racial attitude becomes henceforth a fixed habit. Those 
who believe in a natural racial antipathy tell us that in 
such instances as have been quoted the instinct is latent 
or subconscious, and expresses itself when the appropriate 
occasion calls it forth. But if there is an instinctive 
1 Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power, pp. 278-85. 


antipathy based on colour it ought to show itself on the 
first contact with persons of a different colour. The fact 
that it does not is fairly strong proof that the causes of 
racial dislike must be sought elsewhere than in purely 
physical differences. 

Confirmation of the view that racial feeling is not 
inborn is found in the fact that until quite recent times 
the conscious sentiment of race has been an almost negligible 
factor in human history and has played hardly any part 
in determining the relations of peoples to one another. 
This has been convincingly shown by Lord Bryce in his 
Creighton Lecture on Race Sentiment as a Factor in History. 
After surveying conditions in the ancient world, in the 
Middle Ages and in modern times up to the French 
Revolution, he arrives at the following conclusions which 
he regards as broadly true. The survey of facts, he says, 
‘ has shown us that down till the days of the French 
Revolution there had been very little in any country, or 
at any time, of self-conscious racial feeling. . . . However 
much men of different races may have striven with one 
another, it was seldom any sense of racial opposition that 
caused their strife. They fought for land. They plundered 
one another. They sought glory by conquest. They 
tried to force their religion on one another. . . . But 
strong as patriotism and national feeling might be, they 
did not think of themselves in terms of ethnology, and in 
making war for every other sort of reason never made it 
for the sake of imposing their own type of civilization. 
. . . In none of such cases did the thought of racial 
distinctions come to the front .’ 1 

Again, even in the modern world, in which racial 
feeling has become a factor of enormous importance, the 
strength of this feeling is largely dependent on circum- 
stances. It does not operate universally but only under 
given conditions. In Great Britain and in New Zealand, 
where Indians are few in number, they can receive equal 

1 James Bryce, Race Sentiment as a Factor in History (Creighton 
Lecture, 1915), pp. 25-6. 



political rights without racial feeling being aroused ; in 
British Columbia and Kenya, where there is a fear of Indian 
immigration on a considerable scale, the suggestion of similar 
treatment gives rise to vehement racial animosity. Nothing 
is more striking, whether we take the attitude of students in 
a college towards the admission of students of another race 
or study the immigration problem in different parts of the 
world, than the fact that the strength of racial feeling varies 
in almost every instance with the percentage of the aliens. 
If the feeling is thus dependent on numbers, it can hardly 
be due to an instinctive antipathy, but must have some other 
explanation. It would seem to be a question of how much 
a particular community can digest, just as in the case of 
the physical body a spoonful of jam spread on bread is 
delicious, while a whole potful at one time would be 

I will add one further illustration. Not long ago I 
spent a week at Trinity College, Kandy, which is one of 
the most notable educational institutions in the East. 
The college includes a great variety of races — Singhalese 
and Tamils, Burghers, Eurasians and pure Europeans 
from Ceylon, various races from India, Burmese, and 
a few Africans from Uganda. A more heterogeneous 
company could not easily be found. After the most 
careful observation and many discussions of the subject 
with members of the staff and representatives of dif- 
ferent races, I am convinced that in the life of the 
college race feeling does not exist. It is entirely trans- 
cended by the spirit of the institution. I happened to 
be present at the time of the annual athletic sports. In 
these the different ‘ houses ’ of the school compete against 
one another for a shield. I observed the crowd throughout 
the afternoon. The whole excitement and enthusiasm of 
each house was concentrated on the victory of its repre- 
sentative, quite irrespective of his race. Among the 
awards of the college is a medal given annually to the 
best all-round boy. In making the award the result of 
a vote by the upper classes of the school is taken into 


account. I was assured by the principal and members 
of the staff that the voting is entirely uninfluenced by 
racial considerations. These are only illustrations of the 
impression conveyed in a hundred ways that in the atmo- 
sphere of comradeship and service which permeates the 
life of the school racial distinctions have ceased to count. 
In no English public school is there a greater esprit de corps . 

It may be said, quite rightly, that the conditions here 
described are abnormal ; that the school society is free 
from the complications of the family, from the stress and 
strain of economic competition and from the clash of 
opposing interests. That is precisely the point which I 
wish to make clear. My contention is that it is in these 
causes of a social nature that the explanation of the 
antagonism and bitterness between different races is to 
be sought. Where these causes of division do not operate, 
the physical and mental differences of race not only do 
not prevent, but can be made to minister to a comrade- 
ship, co-operation and friendship as deep and as real as 
can be found among those who are members of the same 

What, then, are the causes which give rise to racial 
antagonism and conflict ? To maintain, as the facts 
seem to compel us to do, that racial antipathy is not 
instinctive or inborn, does not do away with the hard 
facts with which we have to deal, but saves us from pur- 
suing a false trail and directs our thoughts to the real 
causes of a grave menace to the peace of the world. 

Among these causes may be noted, first, those which 
are economic. Lord Olivier in his White Capital and 
Coloured Labour has shown how profound an influence on 
the relations between races is exerted by the development 
of the tropics by European capital. As a result of this, the 
relation in which the white race and the native races stand 
to one another is in practice for the most part that of 
employer and employed. Our own experience tells us 
what possibilities of friction and antagonism are latent in 
that relation. In the tropics that antagonism inevitably 



takes on a racial colour, but in its origin and essential 
nature it is not different from the opposition which arises 
from similar conditions at home. 

On the other hand, the present difference in standards 
of living between the West and the East makes western 
countries unwilling to admit oriental labour lest the scale 
of living should be lowered. This motive has a large 
influence in the resolute determination of the United 
States, Canada and Australia to prevent oriental immigra- 
tion. When men’s livelihood is at stake their passions 
are quickly aroused. The riot at Ephesus, when the teach- 
ings of a foreigner threatened the trade of the silversmiths, 
is an incident to which parallels may be found in every 
country and every age ; and the address of Demetrius, 
‘ Sirs, ye know that by this business we have our wealth,’ 
struck a note that can stir men to fury. But however 
vehement the feelings that, on the Pacific coast or else- 
where, may be roused by the fear of economic competition, 
they are not in their essence racial. They are of the same 
nature as the industrial or professional jealousy which 
makes the members of a trades union or of a professional 
organization do their utmost to keep it a close preserve. 

An interesting article appeared not long ago in an 
American review, in which the writer, a professor of 
psychology in the University of California, discussed the 
question why the feelings of the great majority of Americans 
in the Far East were more friendly to the Chinese than to 
the Japanese . 1 Objectively and impartially considered the 
Japanese, he maintained, are not less attractive than the 
Chinese. If Americans wanted to like the Japanese, they 
could find many admirable traits to justify their fancy ; if 
they wanted to dislike the Chinese, they could find plenty 
of grounds for their aversion. The alleged reasons for 
their likes and dislikes are not the real reasons. The 
determining motive lies deeper. The most potent cause 
of ill-will between Americans and Japanese is found ‘ in a 
vague and ominous rivalry in the Far East.’ Each people 
1 The Atlantic Monthly , April 1922. 


is aware of large possibilities of expanding influence and 
trade, and sees a rival in the path that leads to their 
realization. Of China, on the other hand, Americans are 
not afraid. She offers a vast and tempting market, and 
for the development of that market the goodwill of the 
people is an advantage. There is thus a predisposition to 
friendliness towards the Chinese. We need not accept 
this view as a complete explanation, but it illuminates 
the complex working of human motive and suggests how 
economic interests may influence and colour our friend- 
ships and aversions. 

Racial antagonism, as we find it existing today, may, 
in the second place, be due to political causes. The ten- 
sion between Indians and British is largely created by the 
difficulties inherent in alien rule. On the one side the 
exercise of power and the sense of belonging to a privi- 
leged caste is apt to breed an attitude of superiority, 
arrogance and disdain which provokes resentment. On 
the other side, when the spirit of nationalism has once been 
aroused, the thought that aliens control the destinies of 
the country becomes intolerable. The desire for political 
independence is, however, quite distinct from feelings 
connected with the physical and mental differences of 
race, though these may colour and intensify the national 
feeling when it has been aroused. 

Further illustration of the part played by political 
causes in determining national or racial likes and dislikes 
is furnished by the changes which have passed over 
the feelings of the Chinese towards other peoples in 
recent years. Their emotional attitude towards the different 
western nations has varied from time to time according as 
the political action or aims of each was judged to be 
friendly to China or the reverse. And while in the Russo- 
Japanese War Chinese sympathies were with Japan, the 
fear of Japanese aggression has made Japan today, not- 
withstanding the closer racial affinities, more disliked and 
distrusted than any western Power. 

Mr Putnam Weale, who has a long and intimate know- 



ledge of the Far East, frankly admits that ‘ race hatred in 
Asia is simply the hatred of the “ under-dog ” for the 
powerful animal which stands growling over him.’ 1 

In the third place, racial antagonism may arise from 
differences in national temperament and character. How 
far these differences are due to natural inheritance and 
how far to the influence of social tradition will be considered 
in a later chapter. But whatever their cause, such differ- 
ences may easily become the occasion of misunderstanding 
and dislike. The virtues most highly esteemed and the 
vices visited with the severest condemnation vary among 
different peoples. Englishmen, who come into contact 
with many different races in various parts of the world, 
find the qualities which their own natural disposition 
leads them to admire more prevalent among some races 
than among others, and get on best as a rule with those 
whose values correspond most nearly to their own. But 
such differences are, strictly speaking, personal rather than 
racial. We like or dislike a certain type of man, and 
whether the cause be an innate difference in disposition 
or the moulding influence of social tradition, we find in 
actual experience a much larger number of the type we like 
in our own race, and of the type we dislike in a different 
race. But when we come across a man belonging to 
another race who possesses the qualities and habits that 
our natural disposition and upbringing have taught us to 
like, race is not felt to be a barrier. 

Fourthly, difficulties may arise from difference in 
civilization. Civilization is something quite distinct from 
race, but since the two often coincide, they are apt to be 
confused. Differences in civilization are not necessarily 
repellent. They may attract and stimulate. The periods 
of greatest progress have often followed on the contact of 
two different civilizations and their mutually stimulat- 
ing effect. Foreign customs frequently fascinate and are 
eagerly imitated. But while peoples are often ready to 
borrow foreign ideas and foreign fashions, they do this 
1 B. L. Putnam Weale, The Conflict of Colour , pp. 196-7. 


only of their own free choice. They are at other times 
resolute to resist any change in their inherited customs 
and familiar ways. The desire for innovation is balanced 
in human nature by a strong conservative tendency. This 
attachment to old and tried ways is seen in the powerful 
reactions among eastern peoples against the inrush of 
western civilization. It is also an important factor in the 
attitude of western countries towards oriental immigra- 
tion. The opposition is not purely on economic grounds. 
The peoples of these countries feel that if immigrants of 
a different race were admitted in considerable numbers 
to a share in the national life, they would by bringing with 
them a different tradition insensibly but inevitably bring 
about a change in the institutions and customs of the 
country. The hostility is not to a race as a race. It is 
an act of self-defence against the changes threatened by a 
foreign tradition. It is similar in character to the con- 
servatism with which classes and societies within the same 
nation cling to their valued traditions. The society of an 
English public school will resist innovation with the same 
determination as a nation. 

The differences between peoples in tradition, customs, 
social conventions, and consequently in habits of thought 
and feeling, are so great that the surprising thing is not 
that they should give rise to difficulties in inter-racial 
intercourse and understanding, but rather that these 
difficulties should in so many instances be overcome. 
There is, to begin with, the barrier of language, which is 
seldom completely surmounted. Every one is familiar 
with the difficulty of intimate intercourse with a person 
who is deaf ; imperfect mastery of a foreign language is 
a similar bar to effective intercourse. When this has been 
overcome there remain the differences in the background 
of experience. Men naturally feel most at home with 
those who, as the result of similar experiences from child- 
hood onwards, instinctively respond to a given situation 
in ways similar to their own. The sense of the unfamiliar 
prevents people from feeling at ease. ‘ Oh, I should never 



know what to talk about,’ is the reply not infrequently 
given by people in England when it is suggested to them 
that they might invite oriental students to their homes. 

Fifthly, a very fruitful cause of racial bitterness is 
found in the feelings of superiority on the one hand, and 
of inferiority on the other, which are apt to be engendered 
by the existing political and economic predominance of 
western peoples. The white man’s claim to superiority is 
sometimes blatantly proclaimed, and more often quietly 
taken for granted. Belief in its own superiority is not, as 
we shall see later, peculiar to any one race. But in the 
outward facts of the world as it appears to-day the white 
man seems to find special justification for his claim. The 
marvellous discoveries of physical science which have trans- 
formed the conditions of human life are his achievement. 
It has been his energy and daring which have explored 
uncharted seas and opened up new continents. He has 
built railways and roads, bridged estranging oceans with 
the steamship, the cable and wireless telegraphy, and 
finally achieved the conquest of the air. His enterprise 
has built up modern industry and a world-wide commerce 
and placed within the reach of ordinary people products 
from every quarter of the globe. He has seen hundreds 
of millions submissively accept his rule and yield to his 
greater knowdedge and capacity. It is not surprising that 
he should regard himself as standing in a class apart. 

This attitude, while it is one of the most fruitful causes 
of irritation, is not, strictly speaking, racial. It is the 
expression in the relations between different races of a 
temper which has commonly characterized the possessors 
of social advantage. Aristocracies have almost always 
jealously guarded their privileges and prided themselves 
on the blue blood which they alone possessed. The famous 
Dr Parr more than a century ago recommended caution 
in the extension of popular education, since the ‘ Deity 
Himself had fixed a great gulph between them and the poor ’ ; 
and the devout Hannah More ‘ wished the poor to be able 
to read their Bibles and to be qualified for domestic duties, 


but not to write or be enabled to read Tom Paine or be 
encouraged to rise above their position.’ 1 

On the other hand, the sense of being at a disadvantage 
in respect of wealth, power and privilege is apt to breed 
in those who belong to non-European peoples a suspicious 
and mistrustful temper. Uncertainty in regard to status 
whether in an individual or in a class naturally gives rise to 
a keen sensitiveness. The suspicion that he lacks a clear 
and undisputed title to any position puts a man on the 
defensive and makes him self-conscious. It is a feeling 
that may be found among those of the same racial stock. 
No Englishman or American would question that the 
Canadian is as good a man as himself ; nor doubtless has 
the Canadian himself any doubts on the subject. But a 
Canadian writer has recently drawn attention to the keen 
sensitiveness among Canadians on the question whether 
Canada has a nationality of its own, distinct alike from 
Great Britain and from the United States. 2 

In the world today the claims of non-European races 
to equality of treatment are in certain important matters 
not admitted. In some quarters their right to equality 
of treatment in any respect is denied. Judged by the 
standards which the dominating influence of western 
civilization has made current, they have not as yet, excepting 
the Japanese, any outward achievement to show comparable 
to the results which have been accomplished by the energy 
and enterprise of western races. It is not surprising in 
these circumstances that they should exhibit at times a 
keen sensitiveness in regard to their treatment and a 
suspiciousness of temper even where adequate grounds for 
suspicion are lacking. This sensitiveness is a very im- 
portant psychological factor in existing racial relations. 

Finally, there is the question of intermarriage. In 
the view of many repugnance to intermarriage is the 
fundamental cause of racial prejudice. The subject 
will be considered in a later chapter. I am inclined to 

1 Leslie Stephen, The English Utilitarians , vol. i. p. III. 

2 The Round Table, September 1923, pp. 824-6. 



regard repugnance to intermarriage as an effect rather 
than as a cause of race feeling. The half-caste population, 
which is found where different races live side by side, 
shows that there is no universal natural repugnance to 
the union of the sexes on the ground of race. If there 
is any antipathy, it is a far less powerful instinct than 
that of sex. The objection to intermarriage seems to be 
due rather to those social differences which have already 
been considered. 

The conclusion to which we are led by our examination 
of the facts is that the fundamental causes of racial dislike 
and hostility, where these exist, are similar to those which 
give rise to a dislike and hostility within communities of 
the same race. They are moral rather than racial. There 
is no necessity to postulate the existence of a specific 
and universal instinct of racial antipathy ; while on the 
other hand there is strong positive evidence that such an 
instinct does not exist. An adequate explanation of racial 
antagonism can be found in impulses and motives that are 
independent of race. 

These impulses and motives, however, though not 
racial in their origin, may become racial, through being 
connected in the mind with the thought of another race. 
When this association takes place the feelings may be aroused 
by contact with any member of that race, and operate with 
all the force of an instinctive antipathy. 

Physical differences of race exert an important influence 
in two ways. They make it easier to give way to the 
habit — to which we are all prone — of generalizing from 
individual instances. If an Englishman, for example, en- 
counters in a railway journey an unpleasant fellow-traveller, 
who is also an Englishman, his subsequent reflexion is, 
‘ What a disagreeable fellow that was in the train,’ whereas 
if the fellow-traveller happens to be an Indian, his comment 
is likely to take the form, ‘ What disagreeable people 
Indians are.’ In the one case he recognizes that the 
behaviour is that of an individual, in the other the physical 
difference leads him to pass judgment on a class. As an 


Indian once remarked at a meeting at which I was present, 
‘ If I have a difference with my friend on my right ’ (who 
was an Indian) ‘ it is personal ; if I have a difference with 
my friend on my left ’ (who was an Englishman) ‘ it is 
racial.’ The disposition on both sides to generalize from 
a few individual experiences, which may often be casual 
contacts with the least desirable members of the other 
race, is a serious bar to better racial understanding. 

Physical differences, again, have the effect of fixing and 
intensifying emotions originally excited by other causes. 
Feelings of dislike, not different from those which may 
arise between members of the same race, have, when there 
are marked differences of physical appearance, an object to 
which they can attach themselves. Every time they are 
evoked, they become more closely associated with the 
physical difference. It acquires the power through associa- 
tion to arouse these feelings. When a bone is placed before 
a hungry dog, saliva pours into his mouth while he 
seizes it. Experiments have been made by ringing a bell 
at a given rate of vibration whenever a particular dog was 
fed, and it has been found that after a period of training 
the sound alone produced the flow of saliva. In the same 
way, a difference of colour may become associated with 
emotions originally aroused by non-racial causes, and may 
evoke these emotions when the original cause is no longer 
present. Feelings of racial dislike may thus come to 
determine the entire attitude of an individual and become 
a permanent element in his disposition. 

The conclusion reached in this chapter, that the causes 
of racial antagonism are at bottom moral rather than 
racial, if it is true, has important practical consequences. 
Wherever tension becomes acute there is a tendency on 
both sides to regard racial antipathy as something inexplic- 
able and sinister, a deeply implanted instinct, against 
which it is vain to struggle. Men feel themselves to be 
in the grip of a mysterious fate. It is of no small conse- 
quence if it can be shown that this is not the case. An 
important first step has been taken towards the alleviation 



of racial animosities when it is seen that they have their 
roots in moral causes, and it is recognized that what is 
required is to deal with the social misunderstandings, 
suspicions and injustices out of which they arise. The 
endeavour to promote understanding and co-operation 
between different races becomes part of the universal 
task of establishing peace on earth and goodwill among 



E saw in the last chapter that there is no reason to 

believe in the existence of any inborn antipathy on 
the ground of colour. We have now to examine the view 
that, whether this be so or not, race is none the less the 
fundamental and decisive factor in human affairs, the 
ultimate dividing line between men. 

The existence of deep, ineradicable, hereditary differ- 
ences between races, it is claimed, is a truth established 
beyond dispute by modern biological science, and to 
regard these differences as constituting insuperable barriers 
between peoples is simply to recognize unalterable facts. 
These stern realities will not yield to our desires ; no good 
intentions on our part can avail to change them. Heredity 
is in the end what really matters ; race, we now know to 
be practically everything. The achievements of human 
thought, the triumphs of art, the political institutions in 
which alone these can flourish, all have their ultimate 
source in race. They are due to the superior natural 
endowment of the peoples who created them, and they 
can survive only if the racial qualities which produced 
them are maintained unimpaired. Civilization, Dr Lothrop 
Stoddard tells us, ‘ is merely an effect, whose cause is the 
creative urge of superior germ-plasm. Civilization is the 
body ; the race is the soul .’ 1 

There are two weighty reasons why this argument 
deserves serious examination. The first is that the 
modern knowledge of heredity is the result of momentous 
discoveries, which, whatever our final judgment regarding 
them, must exercise a profound influence on our thought. 

1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour, p. 300. 




We have to do not merely with theories but with facts. 
We cannot leave these facts out of our reckoning. Any 
attempt to improve the relations between races which 
leaves out of account the actual facts of human nature is 
bound to suffer shipwreck. Right relations can be estab- 
lished only on the basis of truth and reality. It is there- 
fore the special concern of those who desire to promote 
harmony and goodwill among men to know all that can be 
known about the nature of man. 

The second reason why the argument in question needs 
examination is that it makes the alleged facts of heredity 
the ground of doctrines of racial exclusiveness and racial 
domination, which, as we saw in our opening chapter, are 
fatal to understanding and harmony between the different 
races. If the scientific facts warrant these conclusions, 
they must be accepted. But if the facts do not 
necessarily lead to these results, then the falseness of the 
claim to scientific authority must be exposed. The claim of 
scientific sanction for these doctrines, if it is unfounded, 
constitutes a public danger. Many people are too ignorant 
or too busy or too indolent to probe the matter for 
themselves. When doctrines which flatter men’s self-esteem 
or appeal to their natural antipathies are put forward as 
the assured conclusions of modern science, they are apt 
to find an uncritical acceptance. Men are encouraged to 
believe that in giving a free rein to their lower impulses 
they are obeying the dictates of an unchangeable law 
of nature. They are confirmed in their prejudices and 
rendered less capable of participating in the task of 
creating a real civilization. 

The investigations and discoveries of which we must 
take account lie in three main directions. In considering 
them we are dependent of course on expert opinion. We 
want to know the conclusions reached by those who are 
entitled to speak with authority. I shall to the best 
of my ability quote impartially from both sides where 
opinions differ. 

Among the influences which have helped to form 


modern ideas about heredity there is, first, the conception, 
associated with the name of Weismann, of the continuity 
of the germ-plasm. The study of the processes of repro- 
duction under the microscope has shown that when through 
the fertilization of the ovum a new living being comes into 
existence, while part of the germinal material goes to form 
the body by being differentiated into bone, blood, nerve 
and muscle, a part is kept separate and distinct in the germ- 
cells to be passed on when the time comes to a succeeding 
generation. The germ-plasm is thus ‘ the continuous 
stream of living substance which connects all generations. 
The body nourishes and protects the germ ; it is the carrier 
of the germ-plasm, the mortal trustee of an immortal 
substance.’ 1 ‘ In a sense the child is as old as the parent,’ 2 

since both derive their existence from the same continuous 
germ-plasm. The inheritance is thus passed on in an 
unbroken current with little change from generation to 

From this view of the continuity of the germ-plasm 
followed Weismann’s famous denial of the transmission of 
acquired characters. What happens to the individual in 
his life-time affects, it would appear, only his mortal body, 
and does not bring about transmissible changes in the 
secluded germ-cells in which the inheritance is stored. 
No question in biology has given rise to keener debate, 
and it cannot be said to be even yet decided. It is one 
that can be settled only as the result of observation and 
experiment, and opinion among biologists remains divided 
regarding the conclusions to which the facts point. But 
the balance of competent opinion inclines to the view 
that as yet there is no decisive evidence to show that 
acquired characters are transmitted. 

A second powerful stimulus to the study of heredity 
has resulted from the discoveries of Mendel, who was a 
monk and later Abbot in the Augustinian monastery of 
Briinn and who experimented with the growing of peas in 

1 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment , p. 128. 

2 J. Arthur Thomson, The System of Animate Nature, vol. ii. p. 480. 



the cloister garden. A brief description of these experi- 
ments will make clear their far-reaching influence on ideas 
about heredity. Mendel found that when he crossed, for 
example, a tall variety of pea with a dwarf, the hybrid 
generation resulting from the cross were not intermediate 
in size, nor some of them tall and some dwarf, but all were 
tall. When he isolated the generation of • hybrids and 
allowed them to propagate, he obtained the following 
surprising result. One quarter of the offspring were tall 
and bred true, i.e. always produced tails. Another quarter 
were dwarf and likewise bred true, producing nothing but 
dwarfs. The remaining half, which were also tall, behaved 
like the first generation of hybrids and produced one 
quarter pure tall, one quarter pure dwarf, while half 
continued to breed in the proportions indicated. Experi- 
ments were made with other pairs of characters, and the 
same mode of inheritance was found to obtain. 

What is the explanation of this remarkable mode of 
inheritance ? It cannot be given accurately without 
entering into the details of the process of reproduction, 
for which there is no space here, but in substance it amounts 
to this. There is in each germ-cell a factor which produces, 

I in the one case, tallness, and in the other, dwarfness. When 
the two varieties are crossed, the offspring possess both 
factors. The results show however that when both factors 
are present one— in this case dwarfness — is latent or as it 
is called recessive, and the other — in this case tallness — is 
dominant. The hybrids, though possessing both factors, 
were, in Mendel’s experiment, as we have seen, all tall. 
When such hybrids are allowed to fertilize themselves, on 
the average of chances — the seeds yielded in Mendel’s 
experiments, it must be remembered, ran into thousands — 
roughly one-half of the offspring will in the sorting-out 
process have two different factors (tall and dwarf), while 
the other half will have two factors of the same kind (both 
tall or both dwarf). Among the latter, again, on the 
average of chances, roughly one half — a quarter of the 
whole generation — will have two tall factors, and the other 



half two dwarf factors. Both these latter classes are pure 
breeds — they will produce, in the one case, nothing but 
tails, and in the other, nothing but dwarfs. The alternative 
factor has been eliminated and can never reappear in in- 
heritance unless re-introduced by crossing. 

The purpose of this brief account of Mendel’s experi- 
ments, which for many readers is superfluous, is to make 
clear to those not already familiar with the subject that the 
modern views of heredity, of which we must take account, 
are based on an immense number of ascertained facts 
and on laws established by repeated experiments. The 
conception of unit-factors in the germ-cells which remain 
distinct and do not blend has, as the result of Mendel’s 
experiments, become of fundamental importance in the 
modern view of heredity. Countless subsequent experi- 
ments have confirmed Mendel’s results, and the mode of 
inheritance has been shown to apply to animals as well as 
to plants. It has also been found that in human beings 
certain characters are transmitted according to Mendelian 
principles, though up to the present very few unit-factors 
have been distinguished in man. It is far from established 
that all inheritance is on Mendelian lines, but the list of 
characters which are proved to be so transmitted is always 
increasing. The tendency is to think of the individual 
personality as constituted by the combination of an 
indefinite number of separate unit-factors which in trans- 
mission follow definite ascertained laws. 

A third influence in modern biological thought has 
been the application of statistical methods to the study 
of heredity. The names of Francis Galton and Professor 
Karl Pearson are especially associated with this line of 
enquiry. The essence of the method is to select a par- 
ticular trait, such as height, and to compare its occurrence 
in a large number of individuals with [the occurrence of 
the same trait in their parents or ancestors. It is a 
serious limitation of the statistical method that it is not 
easy to distinguish what is due to heredity from what may 
be the effect of the environment. At the same time the 



study of the history of a large number of families has 
turnished strong evidence of the inheritance of particular 
characters. It appears to have been shown, for example, 
that feeble-mindedness is transmitted in accordance with 
Mendelian principles, and there is good evidence of the 
inheritance of ability. 

These various lines of investigation and the results to 
which they have led have inclined many biologists to treat 
heredity as the decisive factor in human development. 
Thus Dr Edwin G. Conklin, professor of biology in Prince- 
ton University, writes : 4 There can be no doubt that 
the main characteristics of every living thing are unalterably 
fixed by heredity. ... By the shuffle and deal of the 
hereditary factors in the formation of the germ-cells and 
by the chance union of two of these cells in fertiliza- 
tion our hereditary natures were for ever sealed. Our 
anatomical, physiological, psychological possibilities were 
predetermined in the germ-cells from which we came. All 
the main characteristics of our personalities were born with 
us and cannot be changed except within relatively narrow 
limits.’ 1 

In a similar sense the Arthur Balfour professor of 
genetics in the University of Cambridge, Mr R. C. Punnett, 
sums up the conclusions of biological science in these 
words : 4 For the present there is every reason to suppose 
that the properties of animals and plants depend upon 
the presence or absence of definite factors which in 
transmission follow definite and ascertained laws. Moreover, 
these factors are, so far as we can see to-day, clear-cut 
entities which the creature either has or has not. Its 
nature depends upon the nature of the factors which were 
in the two gametes (i.e. germ-cells) that went to its making, 
and at the act of fertilization are decided, once for all, not 
only the attributes of the creature that is subsequently to 
develop, but also the nature and proportions of the gametes 
to which it itself must eventually give rise.’ And he 
continues later : 4 Even from its earliest stages each embryo 
1 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment, p. 321. 


is endowed, by the germ-cells that made it, with a collection 
of factors which must inevitably develop in a given way. 
Hygiene and education are influences which can in some 
measure check the operation of one factor and encourage 
the operation of another. But that they can add a factor 
for a good quality or take away the factor for an evil one 
is utterly opposed to all that is known of the facts of 
heredity. Men are in some measure what circumstances 
have made them, but in far higher degree they are what 
they were born.’ 1 

Both the writers quoted hold that far larger, more 
certain and more permanent results in social betterment 
can be obtained through changing the natures of men 
‘ by establishing in the blood the qualities which are 
desired ’ 2 than by education or by any improvement in 
social arrangements. They would agree with Professor 
William M c Dougall, formerly of Oxford and now of 
Harvard, when he writes : ‘ The truth is that forms of 
organization matter little ; the all-important thing is the 
quality of the matter to be organized, the quality of the 
human beings that are the stuff of our nations and 
societies.’ 3 

I have done my best to state the case of those who 
believe in the decisive importance of heredity as strongly 
as it can be put in a few pages. But it is not the whole 
story. There are other facts to be considered, no less 
important than those already mentioned. 

It must be noted, in the first place, that the dominant 
theory that acquired characters are not transmitted has 
not gained universal acceptance. Thus Mr J. T. Cunning- 
ham, a naturalist of wide knowledge, asserts that in the 
present state of knowledge no biologist is justified in 
dogmatically teaching the lay public that only the characters 
contained in the germ-cells deserve attention in eugenics 
and sociology, and declares that ‘ there exists very good 

1 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics , vol. vi. p. 605. 

2 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment , p. 4. 

3 William M c Dougall, National Welfare and National Decay, p. 7. 


evidence that modifications due to external stimulus do 
not perish with the individual, but are in some degree 
handed on to succeeding generations.’ 1 Great interest 
has been excited by the experiments of the Russian 
physiologist, Professor Pavlov, who won the Nobel prize. 
He trained a set of white mice to run to their feeding- 
place on the ringing of an electric bell. It was found 
that three hundred lessons were needed, but in the second 
generation only one hundred lessons were required, in the 
third only forty, in the fourth only ten, and in the fifth 
only five. 

I do not wish to minimize the importance of the 
fact that the great body of competent opinion holds that 
there is no conclusive evidence that individually acquired 
modifications are transmissible. But the best authorities 
are cautious. Thus Professor J. Arthur Thomson in a 
recent article notes that ‘ there are some investigations on 
the horizon which suggest the danger of any dogmatic 
denial of the possibility of individual experience having a 
racial effect ’ and gives it as his impression that ‘ the new 
biology will discover that the individual experience of an 
organism counts in racial evolution for something more than 
an opportunity for playing the hereditary cards.’ 2 

Again, it has to be borne in mind that what is given 
in inheritance is a much larger range of possibilities than 
can be realized in a single life. Which of these possibilities 
are realized depends on the conditions to which the indi- 
vidual is exposed. On this point the biologists themselves 
speak with no uncertain voice. What is said in the 
two following quotations carries us a long way. Professor 
Conklin, who was quoted a few pages back, says : 4 In all 
organisms the potentialities of development are much 
greater than the actualities. ... So great is the power 
of environment on the development of personality that 
it may outweigh inheritance ; a relatively poor inheritance 
with excellent environmental conditions often produces 

1 J. T. Cunningham, Hormones and Heredity , p. 242. 

2 Quarterly Review , October 1923, p. 242. 


better results than a good inheritance with poor conditions. 
... In his inspiring address on “ The Energies of Men ” 
William James showed that we have reservoirs of power 
which we rarely tap, great energies upon which we seldom 
draw, and that we habitually live upon a level which is 
far below that which we might occupy.’ 1 In a similar 
strain Professor Thomson tells us that 4 It is of obvious 
practical importance that the best possible nurture be 
secured. Otherwise promising variations may remain like 
sleeping buds, an inherited talent may remain hidden in 
a napkin in the ground. ... It is not speaking unadvisedly 
with our lips to say, that the reappearance of an evil past 
is not inevitable in the future : it may be blocked in the 
present. ... A human inheritance is a very wonderful 
thing ; it is very difficult to tell how much or how little 
a man has got. The son is told that he is handicapped by 
his father’s defects, but it is quite possible that the father’s 
innate defects were fewer and his excellences greater than 
ever transpired.’ 2 

In the third place, man is distinguished from other 
animals by having in addition to the biological inheritance, 
with which we have up to the present been solely concerned, 
a second quite distinct and enormously important social 
heritage. How important it is may be stated in the words 
not of a philosopher or historian, but of a scientist. Sir 
Edwin Ray Lankester in his article on 4 Zoology ’ in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica , points out that in his biological 
inheritance man is distinguished from other animals by 
being more 4 educable.’ Moreover, there emerges in the 
history of his development a new and unprecedented 
factor. 4 This factor is the Record of the Past, which grows 
and develops by laws other than those affecting the perish- 
able bodies of successive generations of mankind, and 
exerts an incomparable influence upon the educable brain, 
so that man, by the interaction of the Record and his 
educability, is removed to a large extent from the status 

1 E. G- Conklin, Heredity and Environment , pp. 325-6, 3 3 3-4. 

2 J. Arthur Thomson, The System of Animate Nature, vol. ii. pp. 494-5, 497. 



of the organic world and placed in a new and unique 
position, subject to new laws and new methods of develop- 
ment unlike those by which the rest of the living world is 
governed. That which we term the Record of the Past 
comprises the “ taboos,” the customs, the traditions, the 
beliefs, the knowledge which are handed on by one genera- 
tion to another independently of organic propagation. 
By it a new heredity, free from the limitations of proto- 
plasmic continuity, is established. . . . The imperishable 
Record invests the human race like a protective atmosphere, 
a new and yet a natural dispensation, giving to man, as 
compared with his animal ancestry, a new heaven and a 
new earth .’ 1 

This quotation is all the more interesting because 
Sir Ray Lankester, as is evident from the same article, 
adheres firmly to the modern view that the results of 
education can affect the individual only and have no 
direct effect on the physical and mental qualities of the 
race or stock. Yet he recognizes at the same time that 
the growth of tradition brings about a fundamental change. 
We miss the truth about man if we emphasize the things 
which unite him with the rest of creation and ignore what 
gives him his unique position in the world. 

A notable illustration of the way in which ideas 
transmitted through the social heritage can transform the 
life of a people has been furnished in recent years by the 
renaissance of Japan. In this astonishing revolution, seeing 
that it took place in a single generation, germinal change 
can have played no part ; the cause was contact with and 
assimilation of the tradition of western peoples. We are 
not warranted in inferring from the fact that the Japanese 
were able to appropriate western knowledge and turn it 
to such remarkable account that all other peoples are 
capable under favourable conditions of making equally good 
use of opportunity. Each instance must be judged by 
itself. Experience alone can show of what an individual 
or a people is capable. What Japan’s achievement, which 

1 Encyclopedia Britannica (Eleventh Edition), vol. xxviii. pp. 1038-9. 


is as real and significant a fact as any of the biological facts 
that we have been considering, does establish is that in 
the natural endowment of a people there are many latent 
and unsuspected qualities which may be stimulated into 
activity by the appropriate environment. 

It is impossible to determine with any accuracy the 
part played by each of the two factors, heredity and 
tradition, so inextricably are they interwoven in human 
history. It may be noted, however, that all attempts 
to explain national characteristics by hereditary racial 
differences have been singularly unsuccessful. One of the 
most recent and cautious of these attempts is that of 
Professor M c Dougall in his book, The Group Mind , to 
attribute certain definite mental characteristics to the 
Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean races, and to explain 
mental differences between European peoples as the result 
of the predominance of one or other of these racial types. 
But Mr G. C. Field in an article in the Hibbert Journal 
has adduced a mass of evidence to show that Professor 
M c Dougall 5 s theories do not accord with the historical 
facts. The conclusion reached by Mr Field is that while 
it is impossible to prove that the racial factor exerts no 
influence, all attempts to isolate it and trace its working 
break down hopelessly. 1 The mental qualities of a people 
are known to us only through their expression in history, 
and that expression is the result of such unceasing, infinite 
reactions of circumstances and the minds of men, that to 
distinguish what is due to inherited qualities and what 
to the countless influences that may have stimulated or 
hindered their expression is almost or altogether impossible. 

That there is something given in each individual life 
that imposes fixed limits on its development is unquestion- 
able, and recent biological science has made clearer the 
nature of the inheritance and the laws of its transmission. 
But is the fact of inheritance after all anything startlingly 
new ? Has it not always been a matter of common know- 
ledge that something at least was given at birth that did 
1 The Hibbert Journal, January 1923, pp. 287-300. 



not change ? Even before the rise of modern science it 
was not expected that the child of black parents would 
be white or of white parents black. No schoolmaster has 
ever been in doubt in regard to some of the boys in his 
class that they had a good chance of a scholarship or in 
regard to others that they had none. Centuries ago a 
shrewd observer of his fellowmen expressed the conclusion 
to which his experience of life had led him in the words, 
‘ Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar with a 
pestle among bruised corn, yet will not his foolishness 
depart from him .’ 1 The view that men differ greatly 
in their natural endowments has the highest of all sanctions 
in Christ’s parable of the talents, in which one man is 
described as being given five talents, another two and 
another only one, to each ‘ according to his several ability.’ 2 

It is true that the facts of heredity do not justify 
the extravagant hopes that were at one time entertained 
regarding the possibilities of education. They no longer 
allow us to believe with Helvetius that education can do 
everything. The view widely held at the time of the 
French Revolution, that the minds and characters of 
men are blanks on which anything may be written by 
social and political institutions, is plainly untenable. 

But if the expectation that a wider diffusion of education 
would make all men equally intelligent and virtuous was 
extravagant and unfounded, the pendulum seems now to 
have swung to an equal extreme in the opposite direction. 
There is no ground for the depreciation of education met 
with in some quarters nor for the undervaluation of what 
may be done to improve the material given by heredity. 
The experiment of education is still in its early stages. 
The serious exploration of the nature of the human mind 
is only beginning. The new psychology which has done 
so much to illuminate its workings is the result of discoveries 
made in the present century. If education has achieved 
less than was expected, it may well be that we have not 
yet got the right kind of education. The best teachers 
1 Proverbs xxvii. zz. 2 Matthew xxv. 15. 


are most fully aware how much has yet to be learned of 
the means of touching the hidden springs and releasing 
the latent powers which they know to exist in even the 
most backward of their pupils. ‘ There is no one who 
knows,’ a distinguished scientist tells us, ‘ to what extent 
man could improve himself by making more of his available 
nurture.’ 1 Science itself is opening up new possibilities of 
awakening these dormant energies and is thus providing the 
necessary corrective to its own pessimistic conclusions. 

The late Dr W. H. R. Rivers was one of the most 
brilliant and stimulating scientific thinkers of his genera- 
tion. In his volume, Psychology and Politics, published 
after his death in 1922, he writes : ‘ The first lesson to 
be mentioned which has been learnt by the psychological 
medicine of to-day, perhaps the most important, concerns 
the vast importance of the influences which are brought to 
bear upon the individual in his earliest years. We are no 
longer content to adopt the pessimistic attitude of those 
who were fed on the old views of heredity, but we are 
coming to see to how great an extent the disorders and 
faulty trends of mental life are the result of wrong methods 
of treatment in the years when the individual is painfully 
learning to control the instinctive impulses which he has 
brought into the world with him so as to make them 
compatible with the traditions and ideals of the society 
of which he is to be a member. As I have said elsewhere, 
childhood is the prolonged scene of a conflict of this kind, 
and the outcome of the conflict depends largely on the 
process of education.’ 2 It would seem that the view 
which would attribute everything to heredity is becoming 
a little old-fashioned and out of date. 

What, then, are the results of our enquiry ? There is 
beyond question in every individual a definite inheritance 
given at birth. Each life has a character of its own. It 
does not simply take its impress from the environment. 
It shapes the environment according to its own ends. 

1 J. Arthur Thomson, IVhat is Man ? p. 139. 

2 W. H. R. Rivers, Psychology and Politics, p. 100. 



The character of each life — its distinctive qualities, its 
special aptitudes, the limit of its possibilities — is given in 
inheritance. To improve the inheritance by encouraging 
breeding from the best is a legitimate and an important 
aim, though the application of eugenist principles to 
human beings is beset with many difficulties. Eugenists 
have directed attention to facts which certainly demand 
consideration. These facts will not be ignored in the 
discussions which follow. 

But to maintain that heredity is everything is false. 
Life and environment are inseparable. Environment gives 
life its opportunities. It determines which of the incal- 
culable potentialities of the inheritance shall be realized. 
It is vain to try to determine which of these two factors in 
their incessant action and reaction upon one another plays 
the larger part in the development of the individual and of 
the race. 

But neither heredity nor environment nor both together 
give the final explanation of the life of man. Beyond both 
is the autonomy of the living individual, which Tennyson 
rightly calls the main-miracle of the universe. 

But this main-miracle, that thou art thou 
With power on thine own act and on the world. 

Man is not independent of his heredity or his environ- 
ment but he can make his own original use of them. His 
talents are given to him but he is responsible for what he 
does with them. He has the power to answer to the call 
of higher things or to turn aside and make the great 

This, at least, is the view of religion. 4 The great 
religions,’ it has been well said, 4 have spoken ill of 
original human nature ; but they have never despaired 
of its possibilities. No sacred scripture so far as I know 
asserts that men are born 44 free and equal ” ; but no 
accident of birth is held by the major religions (with the 
notable exception of Brahmanism) to exclude any human 
being from the highest religious attainment. . . . Religion 


declines to limit the moral possibility of human nature.’ 1 
Christianity does not dispute the fact of inheritance. It 
emphasizes it. ‘ What hast thou,’ St Paul asks, ‘ that 
thou didst not receive ? ’ But on the other hand it sets 
no limits to what man may become. Those who believe 
in God’s love and redemption cannot admit that the 
born part of a man is decisive. However conditioned and 
limited on the human side, man has a side which is open 
to God. And to be in touch with God is to have access 
to unlimited possibilities. 

We are now in a position to consider the bearing of 
the facts of heredity on the question of race. We have 
recognized that inheritance counts for much, and that it 
is for the good of mankind as a whole that the best strains 
should be encouraged. But when some of the writers 
who lay great stress on heredity make the predominant 
position of western nations in the world today a reason 
for claiming superiority for the white race as such, they 
fall into a serious confusion of thought. They fail to 
distinguish between the hereditary characteristics of a 
particular strain or line of descent and the hereditary 
characteristics of a race. It is an entirely unwarranted 
assumption that the best strains are found exclusively in 
any one race. Among the white races there are good 
strains and there are also hopelessly bad ones. And among 
other races we find strains that would meet any eugenic 
test. If we wish to adopt a eugenist policy, our aim must 
be to encourage good strains wherever they are to be 
found. The world needs the best brains and the best 
characters ; wherever they are found they help humanity 
in its onward march. Those who hold with Dr Stoddard 
that ‘ it is clean, virile, genius-bearing blood, streaming 
down the ages through the unerring action of heredity ’ 
that is going to 4 solve our problems, and sweep us on to 
higher and nobler destinies,’ 2 ought, if they are consistent, 

1 W. E. Hocking, Human Nature and Its Remaking, pp. 13-14. (Revised 
Edition, p. 20.) 

2 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour, p. 305. 


6 1 

to welcome such blood wherever they find it. But if 
they refuse to do this and, instead of keeping to the question 
of strains which exhibit the highest mental and moral 
qualities, begin to talk of ‘ race,’ which includes bad as 
well as good strains, the bottom falls out of their argument. 
The argument from heredity, whatever may be its force, 
is concerned with particular strains or lines of descent 
and warrants no conclusion in regard to a race as a 

What has been said does not, of course, exclude the 
possibility that good strains may be more numerous in one 
race than another. Where this is the case, it may be 
claimed that one race is in this sense superior to another. 
Since race and civilization, though entirely different in 
their nature, do in the actual life of the world largely 
coincide, and since even the ablest individuals are almost 
entirely dependent in their achievement on the tradition 
into which they are born, it is reasonable to put forward 
the presence of a larger number of good strains in one race 
than in another (if this is a fact) as a reason for maintaining 
its racial purity and the integrity of its civilization. This, 
no doubt, is what Dr Stoddard and writers of his school 
mean, though they do not always state it clearly. Put in 
this way the argument merits serious consideration, which 
will be given to it in subsequent chapters. 

Before we conclude the present chapter a final observa- 
tion may be made. There is practical agreement among 
the best authorities that there is no such thing in the world 
today as race in the zoological sense of a pure breed or 
strain. There has been incessant intermingling of types. 
In the actual state of the world, one eminent authority 
tells us, ‘ the word “ race ” is a vague formula, to which 
nothing definite may be found to correspond. On the 
one hand, the original races can only be said to belong 
to palaeontology, while the more limited groups, now 
called races, are nothing but peoples, or societies of peoples, 
brethren by civilization more than by blood.’ 1 Peoples, 
1 Quoted in A. H. Keane, Man : Past and Present , pp. 37-8. 


that is, actual groups occupying definite geographical 
areas, are the only realities. 

Among anthropologists there is great divergence of 
view as to what physical features should be made the 
basis of classification of mankind. Keane, in his standard 
work which has been quoted, makes the character of the 
hair the basis of classification. Another basis is the 
measurement of the skull, and many other tests have been 
proposed. Such classifications serve a useful purpose and 
increase our knowledge, but they furnish no answer to the 
crucial question whether the particular race-mark selected 
carries with it any other elements of the inheritance. In 
the present state of knowledge it is a pure assumption 
to suppose that particular mental or moral qualities are 
invariably associated in inheritance with any particular 
physical feature. Mr R. R. Marett, reader in social 
anthropology in the University of Oxford, tells us that 
while the discovery of a race-mark about which there could 
be no mistake has always been a dream of the anthropologist, 
‘it is a dream that shows no signs of coming trued 1 
Theories which attempt to isolate a racial factor and find 
in it the explanation of civilization are highly speculative 
and have little of the cautious attitude which belongs to 
true science. 

1 R. R. Marett, Anthropology , p. 72. 



EARLY a hundred and fifty years ago the nation 
^ ^ which is today the wealthiest and most powerful in 
the world signalized the beginning of its independent exist- 
ence by a declaration which proclaimed as a self-evident 
truth that all men are created equal. A few years later, 
on the other side of the Atlantic, amid the thunders 
of a revolution which shook Europe to its foundations, 
there was issued a Declaration of the Rights of Man in 
which it was affirmed that men are born, and always 
continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. More 
than a century passed and another fateful meeting took 
place on the spot where the French Revolution had 
its beginning. It was attended from across the Atlantic 
by the President of the American Republic. In the 
course of the proceedings he was invited by the repre- 
sentatives of a far-eastern people, whose land when the 
American Republic was founded was closed to the outside 
world, to include in the Covenant of the League of 
Nations a declaration of racial equality. He found himself 
unable, as did the British delegation, to accede to the 
request. The history of a century and a half shows clearly 
that the idea of equality is still in need of elucidation. 

Whatever were the grounds on which the proposal 
of the Japanese delegates at the Versailles Conference 
was rejected, it may be doubted whether the acceptance 
of it would really have promoted inter-racial under- 
standing and harmony. For the term racial equality 
may bear several quite different meanings. It will be 
part of our task in this and succeeding chapters to try 
to distinguish these. We cannot affirm equality till we 



decide what we mean by it. So long as ambiguity lurks in 
a phrase it is dangerous. Understanding is not helped but 
hindered, if a formula means different things to different 
people. What the one party affirms and what the other 
denies may prove on more exact definition to be different 
and not incompatible things. 

A possible meaning of racial equality is that all races 
are equal in native capacity. Whatever meaning the 
assertion that all men are created equal may bear, it cer- 
tainly is not true that they are created equal in natural 
endowment. Ordinary observation shows that there is no 
such equality. Members of the same family, boys in the 
same school, who enjoy substantially the same educational 
advantages, differ widely in their natural gifts. This 
testimony of ordinary experience is confirmed by the 
facts of heredity which we considered in the preceding 

The fact of inequality among individuals, in the sense 
of the existence of differences, even wide differences, in 
native endowment, is scarcely open to dispute. It is 
important, however, to observe the prominence which is 
being given to it in certain quarters at the present day and 
the inferences which are being drawn from it. The follow- 
ing passage is typical of much that is being written on the 
subject : * The thought of this age has been profoundly 
influenced by such considerations [i.e. the determinism of 
heredity]. We formerly heard that “ all men were created 
free and equal ” ; we now learn that “ all men are created 
bound and unequal.” ’ ‘ The equality of man has always 

been one of the foundation stones of democracy. Upon 
this belief in the natural equality of all men were founded 
systems of theology, education and government which hold 
the field to this day. Upon the belief that men are 
made by their environment and training rather than by 
heredity are founded most of our social institutions with 
their commands and prohibitions, their rewards and punish- 
ments, their charities and corrections, their care for the 
education and environment of the individual and their 



disregard of the inheritance of the race.’ 1 It will be seen 
what revolutionary social and political consequences are 
here supposed to follow from a recognition of hereditary 
differences in capacity. 

Dr Lothrop Stoddard, in his recent book The 
Revolt against Civilization which attracted wide attention, 
presents the same point of view in somewhat more purple 
language : ‘ Down to our own days, when the new biological 
revelation (for it is nothing short of that) has taught us the 
supreme importance of heredity, mankind tended to believe 
that environment rather than heredity was the main factor 
in human existence. We simply cannot overestimate the 
change which biology is effecting in our whole outlook 
on life. It is unquestionably inaugurating the mightiest 
transformation of ideas that the world has ever seen. . . . 
The dead hand of false doctrines and fallacious hopes lies, 
indeed, heavy upon us. Laws, institutions, customs, ideas 
and ideals are all stamped deep with its imprint. . . . 
Mighty as is the new truth, our eyes are yet blinded to its 
full meaning, our hearts shrink instinctively from its wider 
implications, and our feet falter on the path to higher 
destinies.’ Modern science, he insists, is bringing the 
democratic dogma under review, and ‘ it is high time that 
scientists said so frankly.’ 2 

A book might be filled with quotations in the same 
sense. In a voluminous literature the conclusions of 
biological science are being made the ground of attack on 
the conceptions of democracy and of international and 
inter-racial co-operation. 

However distasteful or mistaken may be some of the 
conclusions or policies which claim to be based on the fact 
of inequality in natural endowment, the way of escape 

1 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment , pp. 322, 216. 

2 Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt against Civilization , pp. 31-2, 79, 245. 
In fairness to Dr Stoddard it should be stated that he holds that democracy 
‘ contains a deal of truth ’ and ‘ has done much good in the world,’ and 
that the true aim is ‘ to take the sound elements in both the traditional 
democratic and aristocratic philosophies and combine them in a higher 
synthesis’ (pp. 245-6). 


from these consequences does not lie in an attempt to deny 
the fact itself. Nothing is to be gained from pretending 
that things are different from what they are. Those who 
have a real faith need not be afraid to look facts in the face. 
The basis of our argument must be the fact which Professor 
Giddings declares to be the premise of his recent Studies in 
the Theory of Human Society , namely, that ‘ men are not 
born equal, and from the beginning of time never have 
been.’ Nor need we quarrel with him when he says that 
‘ the whole world at present is intellectually muddled and 
morally bedevilled. It is trying to reconstruct society 
upon a hypothetical equality of all mankind. If it succeeds, 
it will destroy historic achievement from the beginning, and 
will send mankind to perdition.’ 1 It can be no disservice 
to insist that we should face facts, for facts always in the 
end have the last word. 

If it is a fact that individuals are unequal in native 
capacity, it is natural to suppose that the peoples of the 
world, deriving their existence from different lines of 
descent, will differ from one another in native endowment. 
Whether they do so differ and, if so, in what respects, are 
questions to be determined, if they can be determined at all, 
by exact scientific measurements. 

Belief in their own superiority is natural to all peoples. 
The theory of a great Nordic race, the source of practically 
all that deserves the name of civilization, which had for a 
time a great vogue in Germany and has its exponents in 
America and Great Britain, is only the elaboration of the 
ingrained belief of the ordinary man in these countries. 
As we have already seen, the white man can find support 
for his confidence in his own superiority in the predominant 
position which he holds in the world to-day. It is difficult 
for Anglo-Saxons to realize that other peoples cherish an 
equally firm and deep-seated belief in their own superiority. 
Yet this is undoubtedly the case. The Jew has strongly this 
sense of superiority to other peoples. The Japanese have 
it equally strongly. The Chinese look on themselves as 
1 F. H. Giddings, Studies in the Theory of Human Society, p. 68. 



the greatest nation in the world and on their civilization as 
superior to all others. So deep and unshakable is their 
assurance, that the present backwardness and weakness of 
their country leave them unperturbed ; the future is secure. 
In his novel The Hidden Force the Dutch novelist Louis 
Couperus draws a picture of Java outwardly subject and 
docile, no match for the rude and energetic trader from 
the West, yet never subjected in its soul, living in freedom 
its own mysterious life, divinely certain of the wisdom of 
its own view of life and, while observing with contemptuous 
resignation the outward forms of servility and acting as 
the inferior, silently aware all the time of its own 

Is it possible to arrive at an impartial and objective 
judgment in this disputed question of racial superiority ? 
The present predominance of western nations in the life of 
the world will not be accepted by other races as conclusive 
evidence of the innate superiority of the white races. That 
predominance is due mainly to the command over the forces 
of nature gained through scientific discovery, and the 
advance in science among western peoples and all that has 
followed from it may conceivably have been the result of 
favourable circumstances and the stimulus afforded by them. 
Other races by assimilating the knowledge of the West 
may be able to overcome their initial disadvantage. In 
order to determine impartially the inborn racial capacity 
of different stocks two things are necessary. First, there 
must be some means of measuring accurately native 
mental qualities. Secondly, there must be agreement 
regarding the standard to be applied ; it is necessary, 
that is to say, to reach agreement as to what constitutes 

In regard to the first question Dr Stoddard tells 
us that recent discoveries ‘ enable us to grade not 
merely individuals but whole nations and races according 
to their inborn capacities.’ 1 This sweeping claim must 
be examined. 

1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt against Civilization , p. 53. 


If the question were one of relative physical stature it 
would be possible to settle it decisively once for all by 
measuring the height of a sufficient number of individuals. 
Other physical qualities such as the capacity of sight 
and hearing might be similarly tested. Is it possible in 
the same way to determine by accurate measurement the 
mental and moral capacities of individuals and races ? 
The assertion that it is, rests on the assumed efficacy of 
the intelligence tests which have recently come very much 
to the fore. They received the widest publicity through 
their application to the recruits of the American army j 
during the war. They have given rise to a whole library 
of literature in different countries. Far-reaching political 
and social inferences have been based on the results obtained 
from them. To judge of the value of these claims it is 
necessary to have some idea of what the tests are. 

The modern intelligence tests originated in the work 
of Professor Alfred Binet in connection with a commission 
appointed by the French minister of education to study 
the education of abnormal children. With a view to 
ascertaining whether a child was normal or not Binet set 
himself to discover what is the ordinary capacity of children 
at different ages. After much study and experiment he 
devised a series of simple tests designed to gauge, among 
other things, a child’s power of comprehending spoken 
language, its power of memory, its knowledge of its sur- 
roundings, its ability to count and its capacity of judgment. 

He applied these tests to large numbers of children in Paris 
schools with a view to discovering at what age children 
could pass the different tests. Each test was allocated to 
the lowest age at which between sixty and seventy per 
cent, of the children of that age were able to pass it. The 
tests were arranged in groups of four or five for each age. 
The standard for each age was thus what a majority of the 
children tested were found capable of doing at that age. 
Binet in this way invented a scale. This invention of a 
scale as distinguished from the particular tests which he 
applied may be regarded as his outstanding contribution. 



The tests were taken up with enthusiasm in America, 
and a revised set worked out at Stanford University on 
Californian children has won general acceptance. 

These tests have received a cordial welcome from 
teachers in many countries. Some would go so far as to 
regard them as the greatest single contribution to educa- 
tion in recent times. They make it possible to estimate 
more accurately a child’s present capacity and so to place 
him in the grade most suited to his attainment ; and 
they provide a universal standard by which teachers in 
an individual school may test their pupils. An immense 
amount of thought has been devoted to the selection of 
the questions and tasks which constitute the tests, and much 
ingenuity has been expended in making them as far as 
possible a test of natural ability or mother-wit as distinct 
from scholastic attainment. But when full allowance has 
been made for this, the fact remains that all that the tests 
can measure is the capacity of the child to answer the par- 
ticular questions or to do the particular tasks assigned. 
The standard of capacity is, in the case of the Binet tests, 
the average capacity of children of the same age in Paris 
schools and, in the case of the Stanford revision, the 
average capacity of children in certain Californian 
schools. The tests are, in short, an improved form of 

When the further claim is made that the tests are a 
measurement of native ability, it is necessary to remind 
ourselves that it is impossible to isolate native ability. 
In actual life it always meets us as it has been developed 
through experience of the outside world and been stimu- 
lated or inhibited by the multitude of influences to which 
it is daily exposed. It must be noted that the intelligence 
tests are first applied at the age of four, and that the years 
of infancy are of incalculable importance in the develop- 
ment of the individual. That it is in practice impossible 
to separate natural ability from the acquirements of 
schooling is clearly recognized by many of those who have 
made the largest use of the tests. Mr Cyril Burt, for 


example, a recognized authority on the subject, after an 
enquiry which included the testing of 3500 children in 
London schools, estimated that more than one half of the 
results obtained in the Binet tests must be attributed to 
school attainment. 1 This view is confirmed by another 
recent enquiry in which the tests were used among canal- 
boat, gipsy and other backward children in London. The 
failure of these children to do well in the tests appeared 
to be due not to lack of natural ability but to lack of 
schooling. Without the mental exercises provided by the 
school, or alternatively among children of a higher social 
status by the home, intellectual development cannot take 
place. The conclusions reached by Mr Gordon, who con- 
ducted this enquiry, is that ‘ the mental tests used do not 
measure their native ability apart from schooling.’ 2 Where 
the social background and educational opportunity are the 
same, the tests, like other forms of examinations, distinguish 
the clever from the dull, but when these are different it 
is impossible to determine by the tests what is due to 
heredity and what to environment. 

These conclusions of British investigators are supported 
by the emphatic verdict of an American psychologist, 
Professor H. C. Link. He regards the tests as ‘ a contribu- 
tion of inestimable value ’ to education, but points out 
that, since what they test is attainment, they cannot be 
a means of comparing the relative inborn capacity of those 
whose economic, social and educational background is 
different. 4 There is absolutely nothing in the technique 
of intelligence tests, as applied so far, which warrants any 
comparison whatsoever between the inherent intelligence 
of various groups and races. All that we can say is that 
there is a difference in their scores, and that this difference 
may be due to any number of factors, of which native 
endowment is only one.’ 3 

1 Cyril Burt, Mental and Scholastic Tests , p. 183. 

2 Mental and Scholastic Tests among Retarded Children (Board of 
Education Pamphlets, No. 44), p. 87. 

3 The Atlantic Monthly , September 1923, p. 381. 


7 1 

In the course of a lively controversy which took place 
not long ago in the pages of the New Republic , Mr Walter 
Lippmann instituted a humorous comparison. He pro- 
posed the appointment of a committee to test general 
athletic ability in an hour’s test. ‘ Our committee of 
athletic testers,’ he suggests, ‘ scratch their heads. What 
shall be the hour’s test, they wonder, which will “ measure ” 
the athletic “ capacity ” of Dempsey, Tilden, Sweetser, 
Siki, Suzanne Lenglen and Babe Ruth, of all sprinters, 
Marathon runners, broad jumpers, high divers, wrestlers, 
billiard players, marksmen, cricketers and pogo bouncers ? 
The committee has courage. After much guessing and 
some experimenting the committee works out a sort of 
condensed Olympic games which can be held in any empty 
lot. These games consist of a short sprint, one or two jumps, 
throwing a ball at a bull’s eye, hitting a punching machine, 
tackling a dummy and a short game of clock golf. They 
try out these tests on a mixed assortment of champions and 
duffers and find that on the whole the champions do all 
the tests better than the duffers. They score the result 
and compute statistically what is the average score for 
all the tests. This average score then constitutes normal 
athletic ability .’ 1 

Enthusiasts for intelligence testing may be inclined to 
regard this as specious fooling in place of serious 
argument. But the illustration touches in a humorous 
way an issue of fundamental importance. It suggests 
that the powers of the human body are too varied 
to be measured by any single test. The capacities of 
the soul, surely, are not less manifold and varied than 
those of the body. Intelligence tests may be gratefully 
accepted as a means of measuring the particular qualities 
which they test. But it must not be supposed that 
when they have done that they have measured capacity 
for life. 

Disposition and temperament are no less important 
for meeting the demands of life than the predominantly 
1 The New Republic, November 8th, 1922, p. 275. 


intellectual qualities which are measured by the tests. 
‘ Effective mental ability,’ Professor Punnett reminds us, 
‘ is largely a matter of temperament, and this in turn 
is quite possibly dependent upon the various secretions 
produced by the different tissues of the body. Similar 
nervous systems associated with different livers might 
conceivably result in different individuals upon whose 
mental ability the world would pass a very different 
judgment.’ 1 Temperament is something peculiarly sus- 
ceptible to environment. It may be affected by climate, 
food, disease and other factors. 

Behind everything else lies the individual’s power of 
choice, his capacity to respond to the call of the 
future, refusing to be bound wholly by the past. 
Peoples like individuals may be roused to unwonted 
exertions and accomplish what seemed impossible, as 
when Italy achieved its unity or the Japanese recreated 
their national life. No man can tell what powers 
new hopes, new dreams, new voices or new opportunities 
may release and bring to life. It is impossible to 
believe that into any single test, however skilfully 
devised, can be compressed all the infinitely varied 
demands of life. The claim that we are within sight 
of any measurement that can make possible ‘ the evalua- 
tion of whole populations and races ’ is absurd. Life is 
too rich, diverse, wonderful and inexhaustible to be 
measured with a yard-stick. 

Before leaving the subject of tests we may cite one or 
two examples of the application of the tests to comparisons 
between different races. The comparisons made thus far 
are almost entirely between white and Negro children in 
the United States. 

An investigation carried out by Miss Strong among 
225 white children belonging to two schools and 125 
coloured children belonging to one school — the investi- 
gator vouches for the fact that there was no difference in 

1 R. C. Punnett, Mendclism, p. 208. Quoted by A. M. Carr-Saunders, 
The Population Problem , p. 385. 


the quality of the 

school training- 

—gave the 


results : 1 



More than one 

year backward 



Satisfactory . 



More than one 

year advanced 



In tests carried out by Mr G. O. Ferguson on 486 
white children and 421 coloured children in schools in 
Virginia it was found that the pure Negroes scored 69.2 
per cent, as high as the whites, those possessing three- 
fourths Negro blood 73 per cent., the mulattoes (half 
Negro) 81.2 per cent., and the quadroons (one-fourth 
Negro) 91.8 per cent, of the whites. 2 

To take one more illustration, tests made by Miss A. H. 
Arlitt of 243 Negro children gave the result that ‘ at ages 
five and six Negroes are superior to whites of the same 
social status. At all ages beyond six, Negroes are inferior 
to whites, and this inferiority increases with increasing 
age.’ 3 

Other tests have yielded similar results showing a general 
superiority of the whites. As was pointed out at the 
beginning of this chapter, there is no inherent improba- 
bility in the average of ability in some particular direction 
being higher in one race than in another. But the tests 
in question can hardly be regarded as conclusive evidence. 
One cannot be sure that account was taken of all the factors. 
The tests were given by white teachers. The standard 
of measurement was the average capacity of white children, 
and the content of the tests was derived from a social life 
which is the expression of the aptitudes of the white race. 
These facts may have weighted the scales in favour of the 
whites. It needs to be considered, further, what allow- 
ance must be made for the social environment in which 
Negro children in the United States grow up. It is not 

1 Quoted by A. M. Carr-Saunders, The Population Problem , p. 393. 

2 Ibid., p. 395. 

3 Quoted by W. M c Dougall in The Nezv Republic , June 27th, 1923, 

p. 126. 


easy to determine how far the social disabilities to which 
they are subject and the brand of inferiority placed upon 
their race may deaden hope and joy in work, which are 
the mainsprings of effort. In Miss Arlitt’s tests the in- 
feriority of Negro children began to show itself from the 
age of six onwards, which is the time when children might 
be expected to begin to realize and suffer from their social 

A word may be said at this point about the arrest in 
development commonly attributed to the Negro. Numerous 
European observers in Africa have commented on the 
fact that Negro pupils in their earlier years are equal to 
white children in school work, but that at puberty their 
progress is arrested and they fall behind. Before this 
phenomenon can be accepted as an unalterable fact of racial 
psychology it is necessary to ascertain by experiment whether 
the arrest can be prevented by appropriate educational 
and psychological methods. Hardly any serious attempt 
has been made to study the problem, and it is quite possible 
that if the right measures were taken the defect would 
prove to be remediable. Mr Fraser, the principal of 
Trinity College, Kandy, in the light of long educational 
experience in the East, is convinced that the arrest, which 
occurs not only among Africans but among boys from other 
backward communities, can be successfully overcome if the 
right educational methods are adopted. 

It is important to observe that in the tests which 
have been applied to Negro and white children a large 
number of Negro children reach the average white standard 
of ability. Thus in Miss Strong’s test out of 125 children 
in the Negro school 87 or nearly 7 out of every 10 
were equal in capacity^ to the average white child, while 1 
was a year ahead of all but 12 of the 225 white children. 
In other words there is a large amount of overlapping 
between the two races. Where the two races are educated 
in the same schools, as in the northern states of America, 
this overlapping is pronounced and the difference in mental 
work is recognized not to be great. The very fact that the 


two races can be educated together is proof that their 
abilities are not widely different. 

We may now sum up the results of our discussion thus 
far. All men are certainly not equal in native capacity, 
and the distribution of particular qualities in different races 
may vary. But in the present state of our knowledge we 
have no means of determining how far observable differences 
are innate or how far they are due to native capacity 
being stimulated or hindered by circumstances. We are 
unable with any confidence to isolate native capacity and 
to distinguish it from actual attainment, in which tradition 
and environment are contributory factors. So far from 
being in a position to ‘ grade not merely individuals but 
whole nations and races according to their inborn capacities,’ 
we must, if we wish to maintain a scientific attitude, 
acknowledge that this is something that we are quite 
unable to do. The only honest verdict is that, while races 
presumably do differ in native capacity, how they differ 
and to what extent we do not know. 

Whatever differences there may be between races in 
natural endowment, there is no question that there exist 
at present wide differences in experience and attainment. 
A fundamental difficulty in the relations between races 
is the fact that they are thrown together today on the 
stage of history at very different stages of development. 
Not merely hundreds but thousands of years of progress 
in civilization separate the most primitive peoples from the 
most advanced. Between these extremes there are all 
kinds of differences in experience and training. Knowledge, 
which is power, is much more widely diffused among some 
peoples than among others. And these existing differences 
are not merely differences between individuals, which may 
be surmounted in a generation, but differences in social 
tradition which only the labours and experience of many 
generations can create. 

Every endeavour to bring about better relations, if 
it is to be successful, must take these differences 
into account. If science can throw any light on innate 


differences, that light must be received with gratitude. 
Right action depends on our knowing the facts as fully 
and accurately as we can. The world in which we live is 
a world full of differences, and life loses something of its 
variety, richness and fullness in proportion as we ignore 
these differences. Any assertion of racial equality which 
tends to obscure differences which really exist, or to 
minimize them or make us forget them, is misleading and 
dangerous. The truth alone can save us. 

The recognition of differences, which is essential for 
wise action, is made difficult in practice by the wrong 
attitude of men towards one another. That attitude must 
be changed before we can do justice to the facts. We 
are prevented from even considering them with sufficient 
detachment and calmness of mind by our lack of the 
right spirit. In a family, the members of which differ 
in their gifts, it is the equal concern of all to ascertain as 
accurately as possible the capacity of each, in order that 
each may be given the work he can do best for his own self- 
fulfilment and for the good of the family as a whole. So in 
regard to racial differences, if the same spirit prevailed 
knowledge of the facts would be in the interests of all. 
The enquiry into differences could be pursued without 
heat or passion. The reason why questions of racial 
superiority and racial equality give rise to such em- 
bittered controversy is that superior advantages, whether 
native or acquired, are made the means of domination, 
instead of being used as an opportunity of service. 
Differences and inequalities are part of the constitution 
of the world ; what lies in our power is the spirit in 
which we deal with them. 

Before we close this chapter a few words must be said 
about the second question with which w T e started — the 
question of the standard to be applied when one race is 
compared with another. The comparison has no meaning 
unless we are agreed in what superiority consists. Is the 
winner of the Derby superior to a dray horse ? Is the 
victor in a hundred yards race a superior athlete to the 



winner of the three miles ? Each is supreme in his own 
sphere. Is the engineer superior to the poet, or the 
scientific chemist to the captain of industry, or the prophet 
who stirs the conscience of a people to the practical 
statesman who translates ideals into actual legislation ? Or 
shall we say that the world needs all of them and that 
comparison is futile ? 

In much that is written about the superiority of western 
races the underlying assumption is that the standard by 
which peoples are to be judged is their capacity to par- 
ticipate effectively in the political and economic arrange- 
ments of modern western civilization. It has to some 
extent been latent in the discussions in the preceding pages. 
It must now be dragged into the open and examined. 
If in an athletic contest one of the competing teams 
which excelled in weight and strength, while its opponents 
were fleeter of foot, succeeded in controlling the condi- 
tions of the contest so as to secure that success in such 
events as putting the weight and the tug-of-war should 
have higher marks in the total score than success in the 
hundred yards and quarter mile, it would not be difficult 
on these terms to prove itself superior. When Europeans 
or Americans in passing judgment on other peoples take 
consciously or unconsciously their own tradition as the 
standard of comparison, they are doing something not 
very different. 

But it is necessary to ask not only whether there may 
not be other equally valid standards of human excellence 
besides the current standards of western civilization, but 
also whether some of the standards expressed or implied 
in assertions of white superiority are standards which 
Christians can accept as valid at all. One writer speaks 
of the passing of the Nordic race, ‘ with its capacity 
for leadership and fighting ,’ as a disaster to civilization . 1 
Another says : ‘ Just as we see man as a species dominating, 
excelling, and living on other forms of life, so we see the 
white race excelling the other races, acting as masters , and 
1 Madison Grant in Preface to Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour, p. xxix. 


drawing to themselves a large part of the wealth of the world.’ 1 
If these are our standards of superiority, have not our 
values ceased to be Christian ? Have we not even turned 
our backs on civilization ? For such standards are hardly 
distinguishable from the law of the jungle. Dean Inge 
might then be justified in his description of the European 
man as ‘ the fiercest of all beasts of prey,’ who is ‘ not 
likely to abandon the weapons which have made him the 
lord and the bully of the planet.’ 2 

It is a huge and unjustified assumption that the largely 
materialistic, industrialized, mechanized and militarized 
civilization of the West is the final or highest expression of 
the human spirit and that other peoples may be judged by 
its standards. If it is true, as is commonly held, that the 
white races excel in initiative, energy, inventiveness and 
power of leadership, the question cannot fail to suggest 
itself, when we look out on the world today, whether the 
qualities which have helped to create western civilization 
may not end by destroying it. It may well be that human 
society has reached a stage at which any further develop- 
ment of the instinct of self-assertion may be disastrous, 
and that, if civilization is to be saved, there must be a 
strengthening of the disposition to appeal to reason and 
to ensue peace, and an increase of qualities and gifts 
which other races may conceivably possess in larger measure 
than the white. 

Every people, just because it is different from others in 
its natural endowment and its historical experience, has its 
own peculiar angle of vision from which it looks out on 
reality, and has thereby its own contribution to make to 
the full understanding of our universe. ‘ No one organism,’ 
William James has reminded us, ‘can possibly yield to 
its owner the whole body of truth.’ The psychopathic 
temperament, for example, may open the door ‘ to corners 
of the universe, which your robust Philistine type of nervous 

1 C. C. Josey, Race and National Solidarity, p. 225. The italics in both 
quotations are mine. 

2 W. R. Inge, Outspoken Essays (First Series), p. 95. 



system, forever offering its biceps to be felt, thumping 
its breast, and thanking Heaven that it hasn’t a single 
morbid fibre in its composition, would be sure to hide for 
ever from its self-satisfied possessors .’ 1 In proportion to 
the largeness and richness of our estimate of the possibilities 
of human nature, we shall be slow to deny to any race the 
possibility of rendering some distinctive and indispensable 
contribution to the growth and achievement of humanity 
as a whole. 

1 William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 25. 



' I 'HE differences between men, which in the last chapter 
we recognized to be great and real, are differences 
within a unity. Underlying all differences of race there 
exists a common humanity. The differences between men 
are small compared with the vast difference which separates 
man from the rest of the animal world. The average 
human brain weighs more than twice that of a gorilla or 
chimpanzee. Man alone has in a developed form the power 
of speech, of reasoning and of moral choice. 

The uniqueness of man was recognized and insisted on 
by the Stoic philosophy before the Christian era. Cicero, 

writing half a century before Christ, declared that there is 

no resemblance in nature so great as that between man and 
man, there is no equality so complete, there is only one 
possible definition of mankind, for reason is common to 
all . 1 The links which modern science has discovered 
between man and the other animals do not impair this 
distinctness. c No one is more strongly convinced than 
I am,’ wrote the late Professor Huxley, ‘ of the vastness 
of the gulf between civilized man and the brutes ; or is more 
certain that whether from them or not, he is assuredly not 
of them. No one is less disposed to think lightly of the 
present dignity, or despairingly of the future hopes, of the 
, only, consciously intelligent denizens of this world .’ 2 
/ Anthropology has made it certain that the basal 
i qualities of the human mind are the same among all 
peoples. There are the same dominant instincts, the same 

1 Cicero, De Legibus, i. io (quoted by A. J. Carlyle in Western Races 
and the World, edited by F. S. Marvin, p. 1 1 1). 

2 T. H. Huxley, Man's Place in Nature, Collected Essays, vol. vii. p. 153. 



primary emotions, the same capacity of judgment and 
reason. Men of different races, however widely separated, 
are able to understand one another. They can judge of 
each other’s motives and discriminate character in the other 
race. The more intimate our contact with another people, 
the more ready we are to endorse the Psalmist’s verdict, 
‘ He fashioneth their hearts alike.’ 

‘ I have lived amongst the Bantu for nearly thirty years,’ 
says a South African writer, 4 and I have studied them 
closely, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no 
Native mind distinct from the common human mind. The 
mind of the Native is the mind of all mankind ; it is not 
separate or different from the mind of the European or 
the Asiatic any more than the mind of the English is 
different from that of the Scotch or Irish people .’ 1 Similar 
testimony comes from the other side. 4 Across the colour 
line,’ writes a representative of the Negro race in America, 
4 I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling 
men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From 
out the caves of evening that swing between the strong- 
limbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon 
Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come 
all graciously with no scorn nor condescension.’ 2 There is 
no racial bar which prevents a Negro mind from appropriat- 
ing the intellectual and spiritual heritage of Europe. 

The fact, which is unquestionable, that it is possible 
for friendships to be formed between men of different races 
as intimate, close and rich as between members of the 
same race shows that there are no insurmountable barriers 
or fundamental differences between the minds of different 
races. That such friendships are rare under present 
circumstances is not surprising ; but that they exist is 
conclusive evidence that underneath all differences of 
natural endowment and of tradition there is the same 
fundamental constitution of mind and disposition. 

No insuperable obstacles are encountered when men of 

1 Peter Nielsen, The Black Man's Place in South ylfrica, p. 75 * 

2 W. F.. B. Du Bois, Souls of Black Folk, p. 109. 


different races attempt to co-operate in practical under- 
takings. Difficulties there are, as might be expected, 
but innumerable instances show that they are not insur- 
mountable. Japanese statesmen participate in international 
conferences and in the League of Nations on equal terms 
with the statesmen of western nations. At the Conference 
of Prime Ministers of the British Empire in 1923 Sir Tej 
Bahadur Sapru had to plead the claims of Indians in regard 
to their status within the Empire. The scales were 
weighted against him. He had to present his case not 
only in a foreign language, which was for him a negligible 
handicap, but in a mental environment wholly shaped by 
Anglo-Saxon ways of thinking and traditions. Yet he 
succeeded in doing it, as anyone who reads the debates 
will recognize, with an ability, persuasiveness, firmness 
and moderation that were not exceeded by any of the 
other contributions to the discussion by statesmen bred in 
Anglo-Saxon traditions. 

The significance of such facts is apt to be overlooked. 
They show that beneath all racial differences there lies a 
much deeper and more fundamental unity of the human 

Not only are the basal qualities of the mind the same 
among all races, but the mental differences between races, 
which we recognized in the last chapter to exist, are much 
less wide than is often supposed. As Professor Franz 
Boas, head of the anthropological department of Columbia 
University, New York, has pointed out, 4 the differences 
between different types of man are, on the whole, small 
as compared to the range of variation in each type.’ 1 The 
instances quoted in the last chapter of the application of 
intelligence tests to white and Negro children in American 
schools showed that there was a large degree of overlapping 
between the two races. A large proportion of the Negro 
children were equal to the average of the white children. 
There is no insuperable difficulty in educating different 
races in the same school ; they are able to do the same 
1 Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man, p. 94. 



work. Here again the experience of Trinity College, 
Kandy, which has already been referred to , 1 is instructive. 
The principal is convinced in the light of his experience 
that, while the different races show special aptitudes in 
particular directions, in the general all-round capacity 
which makes a boy fit to be a prefect or captain of the 
school it is impossible to discriminate between the races. 
No one can foretell a few years ahead which race will in a 
given year in proportion to its numbers be most strongly 
represented in the leading positions in the school. He 
does not believe that if there were a considerable infusion 
of boys from English public schools, they would take 
more than a share proportionate to their numbers of the 

( leading positions in the school. 

It must, indeed, be borne in mind that a very slight 
, superiority on the one side in average ability, or in the 
relative proportion of individuals of outstanding ability, 
may result in a great difference between the relative 
positions of two peoples. In the history of peoples as of 
individuals critical corners may be turned by the narrowest 
of margins. Opportunities may be missed by inches and 
may not recur. A single invention may be the starting- 
point of a long development. But in the world as it is 
today these advantages tend to be equalized. Ease of 
communication makes the discoveries and inventions of 
one people available to all. This makes all the more 

! significant the fact that the average human faculty is 
possessed by large numbers in every race. In respect of 
ability the different races to a great extent overlap. The 
i same overlapping is found in respect of temperament and 
disposition. Brave men and cowards, selfish and un- 
I selfish, active and indolent, kindly and callous, are found 
in all races. The deep differences are between individuals, 
not between races. 

This fact of overlapping between the races is of immense 
importance for our subject. It means that in intelligence 
and virtue, in capacity to further human progress, race is 

1 Pp- 35 ancl 74- 


not a dividing line. To belong to a particular race is not 
in itself a mark of either superiority or inferiority. No 
race is preordained by reason of its inferior capacity to 
occupy as a race a position of permanent subordination. 
To demand this is to go in the teeth of the facts. When 
men are judged as men they do not sort themselves out 
according to race. 

The demand for equality is at bottom the assertion of 
this irrepressible human claim to be judged, considered and 
treated as a man. This claim is from its nature something 
that will not down. It is the central instinct of human 
nature, in which all particular impulses combine and find 
their meaning — the will to live, to grow, to develop to the 
full capacity of manhood. 

It is significant that historically the idea of equality 
has always emerged in the form of a protest against exist- 
ing inequalities. The claim to equality is a claim to the 
abolition of privilege. It is a pressure against barriers 
which shut off a class or people from the enjoyment of what 
appears to be a fuller and freer life. 

The demand for equality, as we have already seen, has 
been the watch-cry of two historic revolutions. ‘ When 
in the course of human events,’ runs the famous declaration 
in which the United States of America asserted their 
independence, ‘ it becomes necessary for one people to 
dissolve the political bands which have connected them 
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth 
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature 
and of Nature’s God entitle them,’ a decent respect to the 
opinions of mankind requires that the reasons should be 
duly set forth. The men who drew up the declaration 
and laid it down as a self-evident truth that all men are 
created equal were slave-owners and they did not mean 
to assert an abstract proposition which implied that their 
slaves were equal to themselves. What they actually meant 
was that they themselves were as good as King George, and 
had as much right to govern themselves as their kinsmen 
in England. 



Similarly the Declaration of the Rights of Man passed 
by the National Assembly in France in 1789 was in reality 
a counterblast to the assertion of Louis Quatorze ‘ UEtat , 
c'est moi ,’ and a repudiation of his claim to an absolute 
control over the life, liberty and happiness of his subjects. 
It was ‘ considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt 
of human rights, are the sole causes of public misfortunes 
and corruptions of government ’ that the National 
Assembly resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the 
‘ natural, imprescriptible and inalienable ’ rights of men and 
affirmed that 4 men are born, and always continue, free and 
equal in respect of their rights.’ 

The weaknesses and inconsistencies of an abstract 
doctrine of natural rights were quickly exposed by Burke 
and by Bentham. But the assertion of these rights had 
vast and far-reaching consequences because equality was 
the watchword of men who found themselves subject to 
injustice and disabilities, and were determined to put an 
end to these inequalities and win freedom and opportunity 
for the full development of their powers. 

So today the demand for racial equality is essentially 
a protest against the apparent inequality and injustice of 
the existing order of things. It is a challenge to privilege, 
a revolt against supremacy and domination, a claim to equal 
rights and opportunities. 

When the Japanese representatives at the Versailles 
Conference asked that a declaration of racial equality should 
be embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations, 
they had in mind legislation by western nations which 
seemed to discriminate against Orientals and withhold 
from them what was accorded to others. Japan’s deter- 
mination not to allow herself to be baulked of what she 
regards as the legitimate reward of her efforts is expressed 
in the following words of Count Okuma. ‘ Look at the 
Empire of Japan. When the country was first opened to 
the western people, we were willing to recognize, less 
civilized as we then were, the right of extra-territoriality. 
We devoted our utmost efforts to improving and elevating 


the position of our country, and we have been at last able 
to catch up with the western civilization, and along with 
the increase of national strength and power extra-terri- 
toriality was abolished and treaties with the Powers were 
concluded on a footing of equality. Furthermore, as a 
result of our participating in the war and defeating the 
Central Powers by virtue of the Anglo- Japanese Alliance, 
our Empire has won the position of one of the five Great 
Powers, and has become one of the promoters of a per- 
manent peace of the world. If equal treatment is denied 
the people of this nation, where is Justice and Humanity ? 
Where is Benevolence and Equality ? It defies common 
sense to see how the Powers really think they can achieve 
permanent peace by enslaving themselves to this prejudice.’ 1 

Indian feeling finds characteristic expression in an 
article on the Washington Conference which appeared in 
the Hindu. ‘ The union of the East and West,’ the 
writer says, ‘ is one of the ideals of modern political 
idealists and philosophers. That alone will secure the way 
to permanent peace and safeguard the future of civiliza- 
tion. But this union cannot be realized without the 
West acknowledging the equality of the East in all matters 
of racial and international importance. True unity can 
exist only as between equals, and so long as discriminat- 
ing differences in status and treatment are enforced by 
the one upon the other the ideal will at best remain only 
a distant vision impossible of achievement.’ 2 

How these claims to equal treatment are to be inter- 
preted and dealt with is a question which will occupy 
us in later chapters. For our immediate purpose the 
important thing to note is that they represent a natural 
insurgence of life, striving to surmount the barriers which 
prevent its full and free expression. The awakening of 
the peoples of Asia and Africa which we are witnessing 
today and the demands to which it gives rise have their 

1 Bee-line Discussions on Racial Discrimination (published by the 
Nissei-Kai, Tokyo, 1 9 1 9), p. 51. 

2 The Hindu, September 15th, 1921. 



counterpart in the democratic movement which began 
with the American and French Revolutions, and in the 
feminist movement with its similar demand for untram- 
melled self-realization and equality of opportunity. All 
these movements draw their strength from the drive and 
push of life itself, struggling to express itself in richer 
and more satisfying forms. 

We have seen that all differences between men are 
differences within a fundamental unity. Whatever in- 
equalities there may be in capacity, training and experience, 
men are nevertheless equal as men ; just as in a public 
school all the boys, notwithstanding their differences of 
attainment, are equal as members of the school. We 
have seen, further, that equality becomes a burning issue 
whenever human beings feel that their opportunities of 
growth as human beings are being restricted by their 
fellows and that advantages which are enjoyed by others 
are denied to them. The problem is created by the fact 
that in human society, as in nature, the claims of one form 
of life come into conflict with those of another. Life 
competes with life. The question is how to reconcile these 
competing claims with due regard both to the inequalities 
which exist among men and to the fundamental equality 
of men as men. 

Some would answer the question by letting equality 
go altogether. Each man for himself, they would say, 
and the devil take the hindmost. Life is a struggle in 
which the strong inevitably devour the weak. But this 
is to abolish the distinction between man and the animal 
world, and to fall below the characteristically human level. 
Many centuries ago Aristotle found the distinguishing 
characteristic of man to be that he was by nature a 
political animal. He possesses, that is to say, the capacity 
to develop an ordered social life, in which justice is 
administered and the competition of the jungle has 
restraint put upon it by custom and law. Man, when 
perfected, he tells us, is the best of animals, but, when 
separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all. 


Injustice is most dangerous when armed with intelligence, 
and without virtue man becomes the most unholy and 
most savage of all animals. 1 

Man’s distinctive achievement is that he has been able 
to set right above might and to subjugate blind passion 
to the sway of reason. Civilization does not consist in 
advance in mechanical invention or increased rapidity of 
locomotion. It is moral beliefs that hold a society 
together ; without them advance in mechanical skill only 
furnishes it with more effective weapons to compass its 
own destruction. Real progress has consisted in the 
growing substitution of impartial law in place of arbitrary 
power and the ever-widening range of interests brought 
under its rule. ‘ There is not,’ says Sir James Mackintosh, 
‘ in my opinion, in the whole compass of human affairs, 
so noble a spectacle as that which is displayed in the pro- 
gress of jurisprudence ; where we may contemplate the 
cautious and unwearied exertions of a succession of wise 
men through a long course of ages, withdrawing every case 
as it arises from the dangerous power of discretion, and 
subjecting to inflexible rules — extending the dominion 
of justice and reason and gradually concentrating, within 
the narrowest possible limits, the domain of brutal force 
and arbitrary will.’ 2 

Over a large field the claim of all men, irrespective 
of race, creed or colour, to equal treatment under the law 
has already won recognition. The reign of law is not 
yet universal. Its administration is not always impartial. 
Wide ranges of human activity have yet to be brought 
under its sway. But, in setting our faces to the tasks 
that have still to be accomplished, we may derive en- 
couragement from what has already been achieved by 
mankind through the labours of many generations. 

In most modern states certain fundamental rights, for 
example, the protection of person and property, are recog- 
nized as belonging to human beings as such, irrespective of 

1 Aristotle, Politics , i. 2. 

2 Quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, The Law of the Kinsmen , p. 119. 



race, sex or rank. In England ‘ the idea of legal equality, 
or of the universal subjection of all classes to one law 
administered by the ordinary courts,’ Professor Dicey tells 
us, ‘ has been pushed to its utmost limits.’ 1 A colonial 
governor, a secretary of state, a military officer are as 
responsible as any private citizen for acts which the law does 
not sanction. British justice, as the Recorder of the City 
of London remarked not long ago, knows no distinction 
of colour . 2 

This equality before the law has by the decisions of 
the courts been extended to the native inhabitants of 
dependencies. A few years ago a White Cap Chief of 
Lagos brought a suit against the Government of Southern 
Nigeria and was successful. I remember well the im- 
pression made by this fact on one of my African friends 
and his pride in the system under which at the behest of 
justice the august majesty of the British Crown had to 
acknowledge the claims of a petty chieftain in one of 
its dependencies. The Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council sits in London as an imperial court of appeal 
administering not one uniform law but many — French 
law in Quebec, Roman-Dutch law in South Africa, 
Mohammedan, Buddhist and Hindu law, and Native law 
and customs in cases from Africa — and access to it is open 
without distinction of race, caste, rank or wealth. Indian 
Maharajah and Indian ryot may alike appeal to it for the 
redress of wrong. Every week brings to its offices from India 
a sheaf of letters revealing the confidence reposed in it 
by the people of India. When the applicant is too poor to 
engage a lawyer and the case appears to justify it, one of 
the solicitors who regularly practise before the Court may 
be asked to look into it, gratuitously, for the applicant. 
A case is recorded of a West African Native, who, desiring 

1 A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Law oj the Constitution, p. 189. 

2 ‘ A police officer said that there was a feeling in the neighbourhood 
against coloured men. The Recorder (Sir Ernest Wild, K.C.), in dis- 
charging Grant (a West Indian), said that British justice knew no distinction 
of colour.’ — The Times, May 8th, 1923. 


to appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of 
the local Court, arrived one day in London with all his 
papers carried in a pile on his head. A solicitor who was 
approached by the Privy Council Office consented to take 
up the case, and in the result the appeal was allowed and the 
applicant returned to West Africa a happy man. 1 

These facts have been dwelt on, because they show that 
in one sphere the recognition of human equality is an 
accomplished fact. Equality before the law up to a certain 
point is an actual achievement, already firmly wrought 
into the web and texture of human society. 

The task of humanity in creating a society based on 
justice and right is a never-ending one, to be taken in 
hand anew by each succeeding generation. The applica- 
tion of justice to human affairs becomes increasingly 
difficult as we ascend from the relations between individuals 
to those between class and class, nation and nation, and 
race and race. The issues become immeasurably more 
complicated and difficult to understand and to estimate. 
Prejudice and passion enter in to disturb fair judgment. 
The sense of individual responsibility is weaker, and loyalty 
to one’s own class or people makes unbiassed judgment 
supremely difficult. Yet there is no hope for humanity 
save in pressing forward to bring these new fields under 
the rule of law and of those principles of justice and fair- 
dealing, of which positive law is the codified, incomplete 
and often imperfect expression. There is no standing still 
in the upward march of mankind. The human race must 
either go forward to establish a real civilization based upon 
right or lose the gains it has already made. A policy 
of domination, repression, violence and force cannot be 
substituted for the appeal to reason and justice in one sphere 
without its reacting on the attitude and behaviour of men. 
To settle things by the callous pursuit of material interest 
and the use of superior force and to settle them by reasoned 
appeal to justice and equity are two incompatible and 
irreconcilable modes of procedure, and the world must 
1 Quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, The Law of the Kinsmen , p. 1 67. 


9 1 

make its choice between them. The one leads to an 
ordered and civilized society, the other to anarchy and 

In a recent article, marked by exceptional knowledge 
and judgment, on the racial question in South Africa the 
writer says : ‘ That which is now being endangered in South 
Africa, and that which this generation has to save, is not 
so much the supremacy of the white man as such, but the 
security of a civilized order, “ white ” and western in 
character, but containing, probably, many racial and colour 
elements in its personnel. The danger all the time is 
that of sacrificing civilization itself for the sake of a colour 
supremacy. Up to a point the two may be identical, but 
when they part company we must know what to do.’ 1 
The fundamental choice which has to be made could hardly 
be expressed more clearly than in the last two sentences 
of this quotation. Racial distinctions may for a time be 
a rough and ready and possibly necessary means of safe- 
guarding a civilization and its ideals, but when they come 
into conflict with the principles on which civilization 
itself is founded, human progress and welfare depend, as 
the writer says, on our recognizing the issue and knowing 
what to do. 

In the same sense Mr Edgar Gardner Murphy writes in 
his Basis of Ascendancy , which ranks as one of the ablest 
books on the race question in America, ‘ The essential 
issue is not the Negro at all. He is comparatively of little 
significance except as the humble occasion and instrument 
of the processes through which the South is defining and 
establishing her conceptions of society and is determining 
her relations to the country at large, to the world, and to 
democracy. The fundamental issue is not what we will 
do with the Negro, but what we — with the Negro as the 
incident or provocation of our readjustments — will do with 
our institutions .’ 2 And again, ‘ The equities which have 
been day by day abolished in petty cases involving a weaker 

1 The Round Table , March 1923, p. 439. 

2 Edgar Gardner Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. 198. 


social group, cannot, upon the instant, be reassembled 
and re-enthroned for the protection of society as a whole. 
. . . When we cheat the weak out of his legitimate 
protections, we not only despoil ourselves of our con- 
sciences and our peace, but we cheat our generation and 
its children out of the heritage of our institutions. It is 
idle to say that the man who thus protests against the mad- 
ness of some of the forms of our race antagonism is “ silly 
about the Negro ” ; he is silly — if such concern be silliness 
— about his State and its welfare.’ 1 

Right and justice have been considered thus far as the 
indispensable basis of civilization. But they gain a deepened 
meaning and more compelling force when they are thought 
of in relation to that Christian perception of the nature 
of Reality which was brought before us in our second 
chapter. Justice interpreted in the light of the Christian 
view of the world bids us not only render to every man his 
due, but actively and creatively seek the good of our fellow- 
men and endeavour by every means in our power to promote 
their happiness and well-being. 

If with the ideas of right and justice in our minds we 
return to the question of equality, may we not say that 
all men are equal in the sense that all are entitled to 
have their point of view taken into consideration and 
their claims fairly judged in relation to the common good ? 
Men are not equal in their capacity to serve the community, 
nor are they equal in their needs. But they are equal in 
the possession of a personality that is worthy of reverence. 
They are equal in the right to the development of that 
personality, so far as may be compatible with the common 
good. And in the determination of what constitutes the 
common good, they have an equal claim that their case 
should be heard and weighed and that the judgment 
should be disinterested and just. 

How difficult it is to apply these conceptions to questions 
in which the sentiments and interests of different races are 
in conflict will become apparent in the following chapters, 
1 Edgar Gardner Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, pp. 33-4. 



in which some of the principal matters at issue between 
races are discussed. What constitutes success and the ways 
in which men often fail to reach it have been aptly described 
by Professor Hobhouse. The most difficult problems in 
politics, he points out, are those in which a claim based on 
solid and substantial grounds clashes with another claim 
no less solid and substantial in itself. ‘ In such cases the 
statesman shows his wisdom by a synthesis in which the 
substance of each claim is preserved but its spirit trans- 
formed by relation to the common good ; the politician 
shows his cleverness by a compromise in which enough is 
given to each claimant to keep him quiet without reference 
to the permanent effect on the common welfare ; the 
strong man shows his weakness by shutting the door on 
inconvenient facts, and feigning to have done with them ; 
and the fanatic shows his temper by standing on the last 
letter of his claim.’ 1 

In seeking a solution of the practical problems involved 
in the relations between different races, to the consideration 
of which we shall now turn, it is essential to have due 
regard both to the inequalities which are found among 
men and to the fundamental equality which underlies 
them. If either is ignored, disaster will ensue. If no 
account is taken of differences in capacity, in education, 
in experience, the structure being built on unrealities must 
sooner or later collapse. But if the equality of men is 
disregarded, the mistake is likely in the end to be even 
more costly. For what is common to human nature lies 
deeper than the differences between individuals and races. 
To deny it is to do violence to the essential nature of man. 
An unfaltering and unquenchable faith in equality is the 
hope of peace and harmony, the spring of progress and the 
soul of civilization. 

1 L. T. Hobhouse, The Elements of Social Justice , p. 44. 



TN considering some of the particular problems involved 
in the relations between races we may begin with 
those which arise from the government of one people by 
another. Here obviously we do not have equality ; the 
relation is that of ruler and subject. In this chapter we 
shall have in view chiefly the government of primitive and 
backward peoples, such as the majority of those inhabiting 
the continent of Africa, reserving for the next chapter the 
questions which arise in a country like India, where the 
people possess a developed civilization and are claiming 

From the beginning of history stronger peoples have 
conquered and dispossessed those who are weaker, invading 
their territories, exterminating them or reducing them to 
the condition of slaves or serfs. They have done this 
without being troubled by any scruples or qualms of 
conscience. We may take it as a mark of progress that the 
stronger can no longer exploit the weaker without protest 
and that the treatment of the less advanced races has 
become a matter of public interest and debate. 

The policy of exploitation received a powerful re- 
enforcement, however, in the nineteenth century in the 
Darwinian conception of organic evolution. This exerted 
a profound influence on the mind of the age. Progress 
appeared to be the result of a grim struggle. Nature 
cared nothing for the individual but only for the type. 
To yield to feelings of humanity and pity was to 
attempt to reverse nature’s inexorable law that the 
weak should give place to the strong. The process by 
which weaker peoples were dispossessed by the stronger 




or made to subserve their purposes was regarded as 

The effect of these ideas on the political thought of the 
latter part of the nineteenth century might be illustrated 
by numerous quotations. Friedrich Naumann writes, for 
example, ‘ History teaches that the general progress of 
civilization can be realized only by breaking the national 
liberty of small peoples. . . . History decrees that there 
should be leader nations and others that must be led, 
and we ought not to wish to be more liberal than 
history itself.’ 1 Dr Paul Rohrbach, one of the leading 
authorities on German colonial affairs, wrote in 1908 that 

I in reply to the question whether natives had a right to 
their land and property and to an independent development 
the only possible answer must be : ‘ Rights of the natives, 
which can be recognized only at the cost of holding back 
the evolution of the white race at any point, simply do 
not exist. The idea that the Bantu, Negroes and Hotten- 
tots in Africa have a right to live and die after their own 
fashion, even if multitudes of human beings among the 
civilized peoples of Europe are in consequence forced to 
continue to live in cramped proletarian conditions, instead 
of rising to a higher level through the full exploitation of 
the productive capacity of our colonies while at the same 
time the whole cause of human and natural well-being, 
whether in Africa or in Europe, is thereby helped 
forward — such an idea is absurd.’ 2 These ideas were 
by no means confined to Germany. Mr Wilfrid Scawen 
Blunt tells us in his diaries how deeply they had penetrated 
the mind of many in influential positions in England at 
the close of the nineteenth century. He records a 
conversation with a friend in public life who had denied 
the right of savage peoples to exist at all, and adds, 

‘ I am sick of their arguments from Darwin and the survival 
of the fittest.’ 3 Evidence of the prevalence of the views 

1 Quoted by Fr. W. Foerster, Mes Combats, p. 63. 

2 Paul Rohrbach, Deutsche Kolonialwirtschaft, p. 44. 

3 W. S. Blunt, My Diaries, Part I., p. 283. 


he deplores might be multiplied by quotations from writers 
in all nations. 

The problem is by no means an easy one. ‘ No one 
at this moment professes, as far as I know,’ says Mr Graham 
Wallas, ‘ to have an easy and perfect answer ’ to the question 
how the conflicting claims of a weak and backward people 
and those of one more enterprising, vigorous and capable 
may be reconciled. ‘ Christianity,’ he goes on to say, 
£ has conspicuously failed even to produce a tolerable 
working compromise,’ and ‘ on the practical point . . . 
whether the stronger race should base its plans of extension 
on the extermination of the weaker race, or on an 
attempt, within the limits of racial possibility, to improve 
it, Christians have, during the nineteenth century, been 
infinitely more ruthless than Mohammedans, though their 
ruthlessness has often been disguised by more or less con- 
scious hypocrisy.’ 1 The indictment, though it makes the 
unwarranted assumption that Europeans in the mass are 
in any real sense of the term Christians, and leaves out 
of account the humanitarian movements which attempted, 
not without notable successes, to remove or curb the worst 
evils in the contact of Europe with Africa, should set 
us thinking. The relations in which the peoples of the 
world have stood to one another in the past have un- 
happily been those of a state of nature, and the Christian 
conscience, while it has achieved much, has come far short 
of what the occasion required. 

Cruel and unjust as the conduct of European peoples 
has been, neither all the right nor all the wrong has been 
on one side. Lord Olivier has well described the con- 
ditions in which a white and coloured community attempt 
to live side by side. ‘ So long as the white man’s life and 
settlement,’ he says, ‘ are in danger, or are believed to be 
so, he will not take the long view prescribed by the Buddhist 
and Christian religions, he will not give himself to feed the 
tiger nor abstain from resisting aggression. He will deem 
it his first business to secure his own survival and to meet 
1 Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics , pp. 288-9. 



the coloured man on his own ground, if any question of 
struggle arises. When the savage kills he makes no com- 
plaint that the civilized man should kill back. It may be 
that the world would advance quicker if the white man 
abstained from doing so, but that, to the pioneer of settle- 
ment, is an off-chance which he may be excused for neglect- 
ing, when his life and that of his family and friends are 
concerned, in comparison with the certainty that if he does 
not meet the savage in methods that the latter understands, 
he and his, at any rate in this life, will not share in that 
advance. And every man not a missionary who goes into 
contact with coloured races goes primarily with the purpose 
and intention of living and maintaining himself : the 

paramount demand of the logic of his situation is that he 
should not be killed ; that he should kill the native rather, 
if the latter will not allow him peaceful settlement.’ 1 

We are concerned here, however, with the present 
rather than with the past. Conditions today have become 
on the whole more stable. The empty spaces of the world 
are becoming rapidly filled up. There is little room left 
for racial migration on a large scale. The weakest races 
have died out ; other backward races are proving their 
power to maintain themselves and even to increase their 
numbers in the face of advancing western civilization. 
Medical science has made it possible to combat and control 
the diseases which formerly swept away whole populations. 
Extermination, as Mr Wallas points out, if it is to take 
place today, must be done deliberately . 2 We are also 

S more fully aware of what is involved. If wrong is done 
today it will be a greater violation of conscience and a 
graver injury to our moral nature than in the days when 
behaviour was more instinctive and prompted often by 
the impulse of self-defence. 

As things are today, the government of backward 
peoples by those more advanced may be justified on two 
grounds. The first is that an area like tropical Africa is a 
1 Sydney Olivier, White Capital and Coloured Labour , pp. 165-6. 

2 Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics , p. 288. 



storehouse of raw materials that have become necessary 
to the welfare and even the subsistence of peoples in other 
lands, and that only the energy and resources of the more 
advanced peoples can make these raw products available. 
Vegetable oils, rubber, hides and skins for leather, raw 
cotton are essential to modern industry. Coffee, tea, 
cocoa, rice, sago, sugar and many other products of the 
tropics form part of the regular diet of western peoples. 
If the inhabitants of the tropics are unable to develop these 
resources, must not those be allowed to do so who can ? 
Valuable products which mankind needs must not be left 
to rot unused, nor vast areas of productive soil be left 
uncultivated. Humanity has its rights as well as individual 
peoples. This view has suggested the title of Sir Frederick 
Lugard’s book The Dual Mandate in British Tropical 
Africa and is developed with much ability in that volume. 
The objection to the view enunciated by Dr Rohrbach is 
not that he insists on consideration of the needs of the 
dwellers in European slums and of the interests of humanity 
as a whole, but that he denies consideration to the claims 
of the peoples of Africa. 

Western rule in Africa may be justified, secondly, on the 
ground that in the present state of the world it is impossible 
for a weak people to stand on its own feet. Ease of com- 
munication has knit the world so closely together that the 
peoples cannot remain apart. The adventurer and trader 
penetrate everywhere and, armed with the superior know- 
ledge and resources of the West, take advantage of the 
helplessness and ignorance of weaker peoples. Exploitation, 
robbery, violence and disorder can be held in check only if 
a government powerful enough to impose its will on all 
alike assumes control of the country and ensures justice 
and fair-dealing. In existing circumstances this must be 
a western government. Only under the cover of such 
protection is it possible for backward peoples to advance 
in civilization and acquire the knowledge which may one 
day enable them to achieve a real independence. 

The force of these arguments is not destroyed by the 



fact that they are often used insincerely as a cloak for 
national selfishness and aggrandizement. What we have to 
do is to get rid of insincerity, and see that practice conforms 
to our professions. Public opinion must insist that the 
government is carried on with regard to the common good 
and not to the selfish interests of the stronger people, and 
that adequate measures are taken to promote the material 
and moral progress of the subject people. 

It is possible, happily, to trace a steady growth in the 
sense of responsibility in the government of subject peoples. 
The creation of a sense of imperial responsibility in Great 
Britain was in its beginnings largely the work of Edmund 
Burke. In his numerous speeches on Indian affairs he laid 
down and drove home the principle that political power 
over another people is a trust and must be exercised as 
such. 4 All political power which is set over men,’ he 
declared, ‘ ought to be in some way or other exercised 
ultimately for their benefit.’ 1 Wrong, he maintained, 
was not the less wrong when it was committed at a distance 
and against an alien race. ‘ Fraud, injustice, oppression, 
peculation, engendered in India, are crimes of the same 
blood, family, and cast, with those that are born and bred 
in England .’ 2 There need be no collision, Burke believed, 
under a proper system of government between the interests 
of the people of India and those of Great Britain ; but if 
such a conflict should arise, in no circumstances might the 
former be sacrificed to the latter. 4 If we are not able 
to contrive some method of governing India well, which 
will not of necessity become the means of governing 
Great Britain ill, a ground is laid for their eternal separa- 
tion ; but none for sacrificing the people of that country 
to our constitution.’ 3 

A still more powerful influence in creating a tradition 
of responsibility and humanity towards less advanced and 

1 Edmund Burke, Speech on Mr Fox’s East India Bill. Speeches (Long- 
mans, 1 8 1 6), vol. ii. p. 41 1. 

2 Speech on the Nabob oj Arcot’s Debts. Ibid., vol. iii. p. 10 1. 

3 Speech on Mr Fox’s East India Bill. Ibid., vol. ii. p. 409. 


weaker races was the campaign against the slave trade 
under the leadership of William Wilberforce. The long 
struggle and the repeated debates in Parliament on the 
question educated the conscience of the British people as 
nothing else could have done. Great as the triumph must 
have appeared at the time, Wilberforce and his contempo- 
raries can have had no idea of its immense and far-reaching 
consequences. They did not foresee the day when practi- 
cally the whole of the vast continent of Africa would pass 
under the control of European Powers. As Professor 
Coupland has said in the illuminating study of Wilberforce 
and his work which he has recently published, ‘ if the 
conscience of Europe had not been roused in time, if 
slavery and the slave trade had still been tolerated by 
a lax or fatalistic public opinion, the second phase in the 
relations between Africa and Europe would have been 
even blacker than the first. The plantation system of 
the West Indies and the Southern States would — one 
must suppose — have been reproduced on a gigantic scale 
wherever the teeming soil could be cleared and cultivated 
from Cape Verde to Mozambique ; and not beyond 
the Atlantic only but in their native land, vast armies of 
Negroes would have toiled in slavery beneath the white 
man’s whip.’ 1 

There is no space to trace here the stages by which the 
principle that the government of subject peoples must be 
exercised in a spirit of trusteeship won steadily increasing 
recognition. It received its fullest international acknow- 
ledgment in the following article of the Covenant of the 
League of Nations : 

‘ To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the 
late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which 
formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not 
yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of 
the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the 
well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of 
civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust 

1 R. Coupland, Wilberforce, pp. 509-10. 



should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving 
practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples 
should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their 
resources, their experience or their geographical position can best 
undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and 
that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on 
behalf of the League.’ 

In this article two important principles are affirmed. 
First, it is recognized that the care and advancement of 
weaker peoples are an obligation and responsibility resting 
on those who are more advanced. Secondly, it is laid 
down in regard to the territories with which the article 
deals that the trust belongs to civilization as a whole and 
that while for the sake of simplicity in administration the 
government of these territories is entrusted to a single Power, 
that Power is not to administer them in its own interest 
but is responsible to the general body of which it is the 
mandatory for the proper execution of the common trust. 
In the official reply to the German objections to the 
terms of the treaty the reason given for not allowing 
these territories to bear any portion of the German debt 
was, that the mandatory Powers 4 will derive no benefit 
from such trusteeship.’ In the further provisions that 
the mandatories are to render an annual report to the 
Council of the League and that a permanent com- 
mission should be constituted to receive the reports, 
a new machinery is set up designed to ensure that 
the responsibility of the mandatories should be real. 

A still more recent pronouncement on the principles 
which should inspire the government of backward races is 
contained in the paper on Kenya issued in July 1923 under 
the authority of the British Cabinet. The situation in 
Kenya is one of exceptional difficulty, since in addition to 
the Native inhabitants there is a vigorous and enterprising 
European community settled in the colony and also im- 
migrant Indian and Arab communities. The important 
declaration of policy made by the British Government 
contains the following statement : 


‘ Primarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty’s 
Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered 
opinion that the interests of the African Natives must be paramount, 
and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the 
immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail. . . . 
In the administration of Kenya His Majesty’s Government regard 
themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, 
and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of 
which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the 
Native races. . . . There can be no room for doubt that it is the 
mission of Great Britain to work continuously for the training and 
education of the Africans towards a higher intellectual, moral and 
economic level than that which they had reached when the Crown 
assumed the responsibility for the administration of this territory. 
. . . As in the Uganda Protectorate, so in the Kenya Colony, the 
principle of trusteeship for the Natives, no less than in the mandated 
territory of Tanganyika, is unassailable.’ 1 

‘ This is a far-reaching declaration of policy,’ Sir 
Frederick Lugard justly comments, c for translated into 
action, it means that there can be no restriction of markets, 
no coercion of labour, no deprivation of lands, in favour 
of alien immigrants.’ 2 

Two cautions are perhaps in place if in the discussion 
of the principle of trusteeship exaggeration and unreality 
are to be avoided. The first is that it must not be supposed 
that the government of subject peoples is undertaken, or 
in existing circumstances can be expected to be under- 
taken, from purely philanthropic motives. There is no 
such thing as a missionary nation. Individuals may become 
missionaries, but the day is far distant when this may be 
expected from a nation. The European Powers are in 
Africa primarily from economic, not humanitarian, motives. 
Their object is the development of their own industries 
and trade. But the benefit may be made reciprocal. All 
that need be insisted on is that the advantage should always 
be mutual ; and that if and when interests conflict, the 
issue should be decided not through the arbitrary and 

1 Indians in Kenya. Cmd. 1922 (July 1923)^. 10. 

2 In an article entitled ‘ Steps in Civilization,’ in Outward Bound, 
Jan. 1924, p. 282. 



selfish exercise of superior power, but on the basis of 
impartial justice. And this, as we haye seen, is not the 
quixotic demand of an impossible idealism, but the declared 
aim of responsible statesmen. It is a policy to which the 
governments of the leading Powers are publicly committed. 

Secondly, it must not be forgotten that the humanitarian 
spirit is exposed to its own special dangers and temptations. 
It may allow itself to be controlled by sentiment and lose 
the power of clear thought. It is apt to create for itself 
an idealized and imaginary world and to lose touch with the 
stern realities of life. With the best intentions it may 
injure those whom it seeks to help by making things too 
easy for them and by depriving them of the discipline which 
is necessary to the growth of the manlier virtues. Against 
such dangers we need to be on our guard. 

But while we try always to maintain our contact with 
solid earth, we must not lose sight of the stars. Vision, 
enthusiasm, resolution and perseverance are needed as 
much as they ever were, if the relations of western 
nations with the African continent and other undeveloped 
areas are to work out for good and not for evil. The 
enunciation of sound principles of policy is merely 
the plan of campaign. The enterprise has still to be 
carried through. It is perhaps a peculiarly British failing 
to be satisfied too easily with good intentions. When our 
Government announces a noble principle of conduct we 
are proud of its rectitude. We devoutly lift up our eyes ■ 
to heaven and thank God that we are not as other nations 
are. Our self-esteem is flattered and our conscience goes 
to sleep. We assume that, the policy having been laid 
down, its execution will follow as a matter of course. In 
reality the serious work has still to be done. While it is 
encouraging that principles that are so much in accord with 
the Christian ideal should have been enunciated in un- 
equivocal language by responsible authority, it must not 
be forgotten that the validity of these principles is in 
many quarters vigorously disputed. Of this we have had 
ample evidence in the preceding chapters. A more deadly 


obstacle to the triumph of justice and right than the open 
challenge of these ideals is the deep-seated acquisitiveness 
of human nature and the absorption of the majority of 
mankind in their personal ends. 

The principal disturbing factor in the carrying out of 
a just and humanitarian policy is the pressure of economic 
interests. In Nigeria, for example, where there is little 
western capital seeking labour for direct employment, 
policy is far more successfully directed to promoting the 
interests of the Native inhabitants than in Kenya, where 
there is a large European community dependent for its 
wealth on the supply of Native labour. As Lord Olivier 
has put it, ‘ The “ Negrophilist,” to use that question- 
begging term which in such countries comes to carry so 
much odium and disparagement, is one whose judgment is 
not yet distorted by the influence of the economic demands 
of the capitalist industrial system. His most common type 
has been the evangelical missionary, but he is common 
enough in all classes where there is no perverting interest 
to prejudice him towards material compulsion on the 
native.’ 1 

In a world in which the pursuit of wealth is growing 
in intensity and economic interests are becoming more 
and more dominant, it will be a severe task to keep 
the course of justice and humanity from being deflected 
by these powerful forces. The plea of necessity will be 
constantly urged. But, as Professor Foerster has finely 
said, the common saying that necessity knows no law 
ought to be reversed, and it should be made clear that it 
is precisely in cases of necessity that the law is sovereign. 
‘ It is just in hours of crisis that strength of character, 
the sense of honour and the sincerity of our belief in moral 
forces have the opportunity of proving themselves .’ 2 

The responsibilities of trusteeship are not fully dis- 
charged in securing to the Native population immunity 
from injustice and exploitation. The material and moral 

1 Sydney Olivier, White Capital and Coloured Labour , p. 129. 

2 Fr. W. Foerster, Met Combats, p. 222. 



advancement of the people must be furthered by positive 
measures. A constructive policy of education is required. 
Its aims must be far wider than the provision of clerks 
for government offices and mechanics for the railways 
and public works. It must include measures for elevating 
the life of the community through the improvement of 
agriculture, the development of Native industries, the pro- 
motion of health, the training of the people in the 
management of their own affairs and the inculcation of 
true ideals of citizenship and of service of the community. 
Above all it must aim at providing the people with 
capable, well-trained and trustworthy leaders of their own 

It is in this task of education that the European govern- 
ments in Africa have most come short. The field of educa- 
tion has been left too exclusively to Christian missions, 
whose limited resources are insufficient to cope with the 
magnitude of the undertaking. Their contribution has 
been, and will continue to be, of the highest value. But 
the time has come when the work of education must be 
conceived in a larger way and taken in hand with fresh 
vigour. The report of the Education Commission which 
visited West and South Africa in 1920-1, 1 to be followed 
shortly by a similar report on East Africa, and the recent 
appointment by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 
Great Britain of an Advisory Committee on Native Educa- 
tion in Tropical Africa are encouraging signs of the dawn 
of a new day. 

In this field there is offered to the present generation 
a glorious opportunity of carrying forward to new levels 
of interpretation and expression the noble tradition 
handed down by Burke, Wilberforce, Livingstone and their 
like-minded contemporaries and successors ; of transforming 
the relations between Europe and Africa from those of 
which every enlightened conscience must feel ashamed and 

1 Education in Africa. A Study of West, South and Equatorial Africa. 
By the African Education Commission, under the Auspices of the Phelps- 
Stokes Fund and Foreign Mission Societies of North America and Europe. 


in which are contained the seeds of multiplying human 
misery into those which make for racial understanding, 
harmony, co-operation and progress ; and of translating 
into living action and weaving into the enduring fabric 
of historic and accomplished fact those principles of life 
and conduct which we have seen to be the meaning and soul 
of civilization and which we believe to be the thought and 
purpose of God. They will not refuse or turn aside from 
that opportunity if their imagination is touched and held 
by the splendid vision which more than a century ago 
kindled for a moment the mind of one of the greatest of 

In 1792 William Pitt spoke in the debate on Wilberforce’s 
motion for the abolition of the slave trade. It was not 
known, when he rose, what line the Prime Minister would 
take. The debate, of which a vivid account is given in 
Professor Coupland’s Wilberforce , had continued all night 
and Pitt was exhausted when his turn came to speak. But 
4 he spurred himself to an effort which even his critics 
admitted to be the finest he had ever made.’ When he sat 
down all doubt had disappeared. At the close of his long 
argument he urged that it was the duty of Britain to make 
amends for the past by doing what she could to promote 
the civilization of Africa. 4 It was now nearly seven o’clock 
in the morning,’ writes Professor Coupland ; ‘ and while 
Pitt had been speaking, the climbing sun had begun to throw 
its rays through the windows of the House. It must have 
made singularly impressive, it may even have suddenly 
suggested, the prophecy of dawn in Africa with which Pitt 
closed his speech. 

4 44 If we listen to the voice of reason and duty,” he said, 
44 and pursue this day the line of conduct which they 
prescribe, some of us may live to see the reverse of that 
picture from which we now turn our eyes with shame and 
regret. We may live to behold the Natives of Africa engaged 
in the calm occupations of industry, in the pursuit of a just 
and legitimate commerce. We may behold the beams of 
science and philosophy breaking in upon their land, which, 



at some happy period, in still later times, may blaze with 
full lustre, and, joining their influence with that of pure 
religion, may illuminate and invigorate the most distant 
extremities of that immense continent. Then may we hope 
that even Africa, though last of all the quarters of the 
globe, shall enjoy at length, in the evening of her days, those 
blessings which have descended so plentifully upon us.” ’ 1 

If the noble work of education is taken in hand, its 
consequences cannot be evaded. It is idle to suppose 
that when efforts are made to promote the advancement 
and education of a subject people, they will be willing to 
remain permanently in a condition of tutelage. ‘ If you 
give freedom and education and the Christian religion to 
coloured men,’ writes Sir Charles Lucas, ‘ you cannot 
confine them to a future of permanent subordination.’ 2 
In the principle of trusteeship is included the contingency 
that the wards may one day grow up. Things cannot always 
remain the same. Sooner or later changes must take place 
in the relations between rulers and ruled. The problems 
which arise when these changes have taken place will engage 
our attention in the following chapter. 

1 R. Coupland, W'llberforce , pp. 167-71. 

2 Sir Charles Lucas, The Partition and Colonization of Africa, p. 207. 



Tp GYPT, the Philippines and India are instances in 
which an alien rule has already given place, or is 
in process of giving place, to self-governing institutions. 
In each the period of transition has given rise to relations 
of strain between rulers and ruled and to racial bitter- 
ness. Space compels us to limit our consideration in this 
chapter to India. Of the countries named it is by far 
the largest. Not only does the welfare of hundreds of 
millions of human beings depend on the question whether 
the relations between India and Great Britain become 
better or worse, but the answer to that question must 
exert a profound influence upon the future relations 
between western races and the rest of the world. It has, 
therefore, a peculiar importance in relation to the subject 
we are considering in this book. 

There are three possible directions in which the existing 
relations between India and the British Commonwealth 
may develop. 

One possible way out of present difficulties is that of 
separation. Great Britain might either immediately or 
in the very near future withdraw from India. This is what 
some Indians desire ; what more say that they desire ; 
and what very many may before long come to desire. If 
there were reason to believe that any large and substantial 
body of Indian opinion after considering and weighing the 
consequences had deliberately made this choice, there is not 
in my own mind any doubt but that the British people, 
whether they thought the choice wise or foolish, ought to 
bow to it. Nor can there be much doubt that they would 
have to bow to it. The cost of holding India against the 




settled determination of its people would be too great. 
The basis of British rule in India has all along been the 
consent of the Indian people ; they have accepted it because 
it has met in some degree their real needs. As Meredith 
Townsend wrote long ago, ‘ to support the official world 
and its garrison — both, recollect, smaller than those 
of Belgium — there is, except Indian opinion, absolutely 
nothing.’ 1 

But India does not at present demand complete separa- 
tion ; nor from such contact as I have had with Indians 
at home and in India have I gained the impression that 
a severing of the British connexion is what Indians really 
desire. My impression is rather that they value the 
connexion and would like to retain it, if they could do 
so on terms of self-respect. ‘ Does anybody imagine that 
any Indian (except perhaps a few Pan-Islamists),’ says one 
writer, ‘ really desires to see every European quit India by 
the next P. and O. mail — with the whole of their army, 
police and administrative machinery ? Indians are really 
not such utter fools (as some Anglo-Indians seem to think) 
as not to see that this would mean chaos and anarchy on 
a staggering scale.’ The withdrawal of Great Britain would 
confront the people of India with acute problems of external 
defence and of the maintenance of internal order. 

India possesses at present neither a navy nor a trained 
national army of her own. Her long coast-line makes her 
vulnerable to attack by sea, and her sea-borne commerce, 
which is essential to her prosperity, would be at the mercy 
of an enemy that held command of the sea. On land the 
north-west frontier has passes through which from time 
immemorial invading hosts have poured in, to possess them- 
selves of the rich plains of Hindustan. The creation of an 
Indian army and, if need be, an Indian navy must take time 
and will involve a cost which can be met only by the 
increase of wealth through industrial development. While 
we may wish to see armaments everywhere reduced to a 
minimum, as the world is today, national aggression and 
1 Meredith Townsend, Asia and Europe , p. 85. 


brigandage are not yet abolished or brought within bounds. 
Against such dangers India is at present protected by 
membership in the British Empire. It is intelligible that 
Indians should want to see in existence some adequate 
substitute for that protection before committing themselves 
to complete independence. 

The problem of maintaining internal order if the British 
were to withdraw is hardly less grave. To whom, in the 
event of the abdication of the British raj , would the 
allegiance of the people of India be given ? To whose 
authority would they yield their recognition and sub- 
mission ? Hardly, it may be presumed, to the newly con- 
stituted councils and assembly. These are too recent for 
the habit of loyalty to them to have deep root. There are 
turbulent elements in India which would, if they had the 
chance, treat them with scant respect. Would some 
powerful dictator establish his rule by wading through 
blood ? Would the many different communities, racial, 
linguistic and religious, acknowledge the supremacy of 
one ? Or would India break up into a number of different 
and mutually hostile states, or relapse into irremediable 
anarchy ? It is the difficulty of finding a satisfying answer 
to such questions that gives pause about ending at once the 
British connexion. The tension between the two great 
religious communities in India has increased since the war. 
Mr Mohammed Ali is reported to have declared at the 
National Congress in 1923 that he was a Moslem first and an 
Indian afterwards. The growth of the diverse communities 
of India into a real national unity is in the nature of things 
a slow process which cannot be forced, and many Indian 
nationalists without abating their national aspirations are 
in doubt whether the time has yet come to dispense 
altogether with the framework within which the process is 
slowly taking place. 

Advocates of separation as a solution are not found on 
the Indian side alone. There is a growing body of opinion 
in Great Britain which inclines to the view that it would be 
easier and simpler if India were to go out and leave the 



British Empire to become a predominantly white common- 
wealth. Opinion in the self-governing dominions is disposed 
still more strongly to take this view. 

The reason is in some cases that the strain of existing 
relations is intolerable. The friction is certain to increase, 
and the only thing to be done is to cut the knot. ‘ Give 
them Swaraj,’ says the leading character in a recent novel 
bearing the significant title Abdication. ‘ What does it 
matter if they knock one another on the head, or neglect 
their drains, or leave their dead animals in the middle 
of the road ? Race-hatred, which is the one thing that 
ultimately matters, would disappear .’ 1 To bring to com- 
pletion Great Britain’s work in India is a task too 
difficult. Let us acknowledge failure and admit that we 
attempted the impossible. 

Or the view may be that the differences between the 
Anglo-Saxon peoples and those of India are too great for 
their destinies to be bound up together with advantage to 
either. Anglo-Saxon evolution can best take place on its 
own lines free from entanglements with other peoples. 
‘ We are different from these dusky peoples,’ writes Mr 
H. G. Wells; ‘we do not work with them easily; we 
hamper them and they hamper us intolerably.’ The 
lines on which the British system may best serve mankind 
is to disentangle itself from India and sedulously preserve 
and intensify the intellectual community of the English- 
speaking peoples . 2 

But Mr Wells’ solution is not as simple as it seems. 
To say that the British system must disentangle itself from 
India is easy ; to give effect to the process and not leave 
things worse than they were before is a task beset by endless 
difficulty. History cannot be unwritten by a stroke of the 
pen. It is good neither for India nor for England 
that the thousand strands by which through the centuries 
their fortunes have become intertwined should be rudely 
severed. Their welfare requires that the relations which 

1 Edmund Candler, Abdication, p. 277. 

2 The Empire Review, October 1923, pp. 1076-7. 


now subsist between them should evolve into something 
higher and nobler. The withdrawal of Great Britain 
would not settle the relations between the two countries. 
They would still have to live in the same world. The 
problem how East and West may live together is not 
brought nearer to a solution by the separation of India 
from the British system. It will present itself with un- 
diminished urgency in new forms. The ultimate political 
problem of the world which cannot be evaded will have 
been rendered more difficult of solution if the bond is 
severed which unites the people of India with those of Anglo- 
Saxon countries in a common loyalty and in obedience 
to a common law. 

It thus appears that the first of the possible solutions 
of our problem is undesirable in the interests alike of 
India, of Great Britain and of human progress generally. 
The immediate termination of the British connexion with 
India could take place only at the cost of widespread, 
and probably prolonged, suffering and misery and of grave 
disturbance of the life of the world. No one could 
foretell where its repercussions might end. 

A second conceivable development of the relations 
between Great Britain and India is that there should 
be a return to autocratic rule. This, however, appears to 
be impossible for two reasons. 

The first is that such a policy, which would call forth 
the most vehement resistance, could be carried out only 
by force, and that the amount of force required to execute 
it would be excessive. The fatal objection to the use of 
force, except when it is employed in what is recognized 
to be a just and necessary cause, is that it provokes the 
use of force on the other side and has consequently to 
be administered in ever-increasing doses. The destructive 
power of modern weapons at the disposal of economically 
powerful nations is such that it might be possible for Great 
Britain to cow the people of India into submission. But 
the garrison required to rule India by force would be vastly 
larger than the people of Great Britain would be willing 


n 3 

to furnish. Methods of terrorism would be met by methods 
of assassination, and life would become hardly tolerable. 
The administration of so vast a country is necessarily 
dependent in all its branches on Indian assistance and could 
be rendered impossible by passive resistance. Whatever 
may have been possible once, the British people no longer 
possess the nerve, or the ferocity, as one may choose to regard 
it, to carry such a policy through. Public opinion would 
grow restive, and a policy of this kind carried out half- 
heartedly must fail. 

A second reason why a return to despotism is impossible 
is that the British people have by the declaration of August 
1917 committed themselves to the opposite policy, and 
when a momentous decision has been reached it is not in 
accordance with British traditions to go back on it. 

If neither the abdication of Great Britain nor a return 
to autocratic rule provides a tolerable solution the only 
course that remains is co-operation. It alone seems to 
offer any hope of averting catastrophe. It is what is 
desired, in some form, by the great body of informed and 
intelligent opinion on both sides. And yet on both sides 
the utmost pessimism exists regarding its practicability. 
During a recent visit to India I found a general hopelessness 
among both Indians and Englishmen in regard to any real 
solution of the difficulties which exist. 

Where faith and hope are wanting, the chances of success 
are greatly lessened. While, as we have seen, the speedy 
termination of the British connexion with India is desirable 
neither from the Indian nor from the British point of view, 
and would be disastrous in its consequences, the danger must 
be clearly recognized that a consummation intended by 
neither side and contrary to the real desires of both may, 
in despite of human will, be brought about by unregarded 
forces and the irresistible march of events. The belief 
of the peoples of Great Britain and of the self-governing 
dominions in the value of the Indian connexion may be 
progressively weakened until they become unwilling to 
make any sacrifices to maintain it. The Indian services 



are losing, if indeed they have not already largely lost, 
their attraction for Englishmen. Indians can hardly be 
expected in present circumstances to find this unwelcome ; 
but the fact remains that it may mean the breaking of one 
of the strongest strands that have united Great Britain 
and India, and that the others may, when the tug comes, 
prove not strong enough to withstand the strain. On 
the Indian side the danger is that a situation which is full 
of difficulty may at any moment come to be felt to be 
intolerable, and that feeling may unexpectedly take charge 
of events and bring to pass a denouement which reason and 
self-interest, if their voice could have been heard, would 
have striven to avert. 

The fundamental question, then, is whether a policy 
of co-operation is really possible. As Viscount Grey has 
said, ‘ If all the good you do in a country is not the par- 
ticular sort of good that country appreciates or wants ; 
if it does not produce the goodwill and the contentment 
of the population, what is the good of going on with your 
work ? ... If you have not got the goodwill of the 
population, however good your intentions, however able 
you may be, you cannot make a good thing of the govern- 
ment of the country. And therefore you will have to 
admit one of two things — either that you are attempting 
the impossible, or that there is something wrong in your 
methods which needs to be altered.’ 1 That is the ultimate 
question. Is Great Britain in India attempting something 
impossible ? Or is there any change that might make it 
possible ? 

The problem is at bottom psychological, and unless this 
deeper issue can somehow be dealt with the political problem 
must remain incapable of solution. Indians and British 
view the question from opposite sides and are interested 
in different sets of facts. Their minds seldom really meet. 
The Englishman who is sincerely desirous of promoting 
the welfare of India, starting from his own premises arrives 

1 Address at the Student Conference at Glasgow, January 1921, Christ 
and Human Need — 1921 , p. 5. 



at conclusions so obviously necessitated by the facts, so 
essentially reasonable, moderate and fair that he cannot 
understand how any intelligent person can dispute them. 
Yet the argument remains without effect on the Indian 
mind, since what is most vital in the Indian consciousness 
has been entirely left out of account. Intellectual agree- 
ment is impossible because unity of feeling is lacking as a 

Indian opinion in the main, as we have seen, does not 
desire the severing of the British connexion, yet to Indians 
the question is always present how that connexion can be 
maintained consistently with their self-respect. It would 
hardly be an exaggeration to sum up the impression left 
on my mind by numerous conversations with Indians of 
all shades of opinion during a recent visit to India by 
saying that there was hardly one who really wanted the 
British to leave India and scarcely one for whom, at any 
rate in certain moods, it did not seem intolerable that they 
should stay. To know from day to day that decisions 
regarding the affairs of one’s country are made by alien 
rulers, to be conscious of social exclusiveness among the 
governing race, to incur social slights which seem to cast 
a stigma of inferiority, to run the risk of being exposed on 
occasion to insolence, insult and humiliation which rankle in 
the memory — such experiences alike in their larger and their 
more petty aspects are calculated to arouse the strongest 
and most intense feelings which the mind can entertain. 
I was told by the principal of one of the leading colleges 
in India that one of his best and ablest students had recently 
come to him and said with tears in his eyes, that the thought 
of belonging to a subject people had become so unendur- 
able that he doubted whether he could go on living. When 
I was in China I met there a cultivated and talented Indian 
Christian woman and asked her how she was enjoying her 
experiences. She replied that it had been for her a great 
and unforgettable experience ; she felt that she was in an 
atmosphere in which she could breathe. So marked was 
the difference to her of a country which, notwithstanding 


the similarity of many of its problems to those of India, 
was free from the control of an alien race. Mr Romesh 
Chandra Dutt, once a member of the Civil Service and a 
Congress leader, describes his feelings when in company 
with a party of tourists he visited the North Cape. ‘ I 
will not conceal,’ he writes, ‘ the pain and humiliation 
which I felt in my inmost soul as I stood on that memorable 
night among representatives of the free and advancing 
nations of the earth rejoicing in their national greatness. 
Champagne was drunk on the top of the hill, and Germans 
and Frenchmen, Englishmen and Americans, pressed us to 
share their hospitality. I accepted their offer with thanks 
on my lips, but I felt within me that I had no place among 
them.’ 1 

‘ To other nations,’ writes an Indian Christian, ‘ politics 
may be a profession or a pastime, but to India at the present 
juncture it is the corporate effort of a nation to recover its 
manhood.’ 2 When the feeling of nationality has been 
aroused it becomes a master passion, sweeping all before it. 
The yearning for freedom, the desire to gain control over 
one’s own destinies, the longing for self-realization and 
self-expression can be appeased only by finding satisfaction. 
It is a mistake to suppose that so turbulent a principle can 
be held in check by reason and logic. It must find its 
natural outlet or it will in the end burst all dams, spreading 
devastation and ruin in its course. 

The grave danger in the Indian situation, as has already 
been pointed out, is that the tide of feeling may become 
irresistible. The sense of injured self-respect and thwarted 
manhood, the passionate desire for freedom, the feeling of 
hopelessness in regard to the present situation may suddenly 
become overpowering and lead Indians to throw prudence 
to the winds and make up their minds that any fate is to 
be preferred to subjection to alien rule. It is futile to 
imagine that the danger can be averted by dwelling on the 

1 Quoted by Sir Verney Lovett in A History of the Indian Nationalist 
Movement , pp. 237-8. 

2 International Review of Missions, January 1924, p. 62. 



folly of such courses and the disastrous consequences that 
must follow. The state of mind is one to which such con- 
siderations are irrelevant. The only possible cure is to 
discover some means by which impulses deeply implanted 
in human nature and aspirations natural to men may find 
their proper and legitimate satisfaction. 

Let us view the scene now from the other side. The 
Englishman who wishes well to India — we are concerned 
here only with this class — approaches the problem in the 
light of his present responsibilities and his own past 

Up till now Great Britain has carried the ultimate 
responsibility for the well-being and happiness of the 
inhabitants of India. Whatever her failures and short- 
comings she can point to vast material improvements in 
many directions. The British people have definitely 
made up their minds that they are prepared to transfer 
responsibility to Indian shoulders. But they want some 
assurance that their surrender of responsibility will not 
plunge India into misrule and anarchy. They want to 
know what is going to be put in the place which they 

Experience has made the British people distrustful of 
theories, of catchwords, of professions. They have learned 
how little influence these have on the stubbornness of facts. 
However fully they may sympathize with Indian national 
aspirations, their experience leaves them no choice but to 
believe that the things Indians desire cannot be reached 
at a bound. The world, it seems clear to them, has not 
been made that way. Apprenticeship, discipline, slowly 
ripening experience are indispensable. The haste, the 
impatience of many Indian leaders seem to the British mind 
to be a flying in the face of nature. Lord Olivier, for 
example, the Secretary of State for India, in a debate in 
the House of Lords, while he expressed the full sympathy 
of His Majesty’s Government with the purposes of the 
Home Rule party in India, when he came to discuss the 
means of attaining it, appealed to the experience of the 


Labour Party and the methods which had in the end 
placed them in power. They had begun by creating an 
intelligent and understanding constituency which would 
know what they were driving at, and give its representatives 
steady support. They began at the bottom and not at 
the top. ‘ We saw that there could be no Parliamentary 
stability whatever and no progress in any kind of change 
or revolution unless the Parliamentary constitution and 
representation were based upon a real, vital, organic 
constituency of common interests and understanding, 
which, as I have said, is singularly absent in India.’ 1 And 
in the same debate Lord Balfour said with reference to the 
extremist party in India : ‘ They have shown all the 

qualities of contrivance, and ingenuity of Parliamentary 
obstruction, and all the smaller arts which hang about the 
practice of free institutions, but what they have not shown 
is that fundamental desire to make the government of their 
country work, without which free institutions are not 
only perfectly useless but may be absolutely danger- 
ous. . . . Their ingenuity is wholly destructive, so far as 
f I can see. I am not aware that they have ever suggested a 
new scheme, or given a hint as to what is to happen if the 
British rule were to come to an end.’ 2 The better mind 
of England is not hostile to Indian aspirations. But it 
does desire some reasonable assurance that the transfer of 
authority from British to Indian hands will take place in 
such a way as will contribute to the real progress of 

From the Indian point of view it may be immaterial 
what Englishmen think. But if the British view, based on 
long experience of the practical difficulties of government, 
should happen to be a transcript or reflexion of stubborn 
realities, then what India has to reckon with is not the 
opinion of Englishmen, which they may ignore if they 
choose, but the hard and unalterable facts which have 
contributed to the shaping of that opinion ; and nature 

1 Parliamentary Debates , House of Lords, Feb. 26th, 1924, p. 337. 

2 Ibid., Feb. 27th, p. 420. 



has ordained that the disregard of facts is invariably visited 
with severe penalties. 

We find, then, these two sharply contrasted views in 
opposition to one another. Each on its own assumptions 
appears unanswerable. Each to those who start from 
those assumptions seems so clear and convincing that only 
wilful perversity can refuse to recognize its truth. To a 
detached observer, if such exists, it might perhaps seem 
that both are necessary to a true view and are capable of 
being harmonized in a deeper insight and richer experience. 
But in practice they appear to be irreconcilably opposed, 
and the larger unity in which they might be harmonized 
seems to be beyond our grasp. 

When we reach an apparent impasse of this kind, the 
only thing to be done is to probe deeper, if we can, and to 
re-examine our assumptions. It may be that the attitude 
of mind is wanting which is necessary for a solution of the 
political problem, and that without a new outlook progress 
is impossible. 

Great Britain is committed by the Government of India 
Act of 1919 to the policy of the development of self- 
governing institutions, with a view to the progressive 
realization of responsible government in India. In a 
resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1921 the position 
of India is recognized to be that of ‘ an equal member of 
the British Empire.’ But while the goal of British policy 
has at last received clear definition and a new purpose has 
been formed, the habits of a long past are not quickly 
shaken off. A life-long habit of taking decisions is not 
one that those who govern India can easily change, how- 
ever sincere may be their desire to give effect to the new 
policy. The traditional picture in the minds of the British 
public of India as ‘ the brightest jewel in the British 
Crown,’ administered with unequalled efficiency by a 
civil service of whose work the nation is justly proud, does 
not readily give place to a conception of the people of India 
as partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations. 
The position is analogous to that in the industrial world, 


where capital has to face the necessity of taking labour 
into partnership and of recognizing it as an associate 
equally concerned with itself in the success or failure of 
the business. That the only hope of peace in industry 
lies in both sides working together on fair terms is increas- 
ingly acknowledged, but the old habits of authority and 
command are not easily laid aside. 

It sometimes happens in controversies that the issues 
that figure in debate are really subsidiary and the funda- 
mental question on which everything turns is never brought 
into the open at all. If a line of argument which to the 
British mind seems unanswerable leaves Indians uncon- 
vinced, the reason may be that it is not directed to what 
in Indian feeling is the vital issue. 

An illustration may be found in the preamble of the 
Government of India Act, where it is stated that ‘ the 
time and manner of each advance ’ in responsible govern- 
ment ‘ can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom 
responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the 
Indian peoples.’ No one will dispute that this correctly 
represents the constitutional position. There is no way in 
which India can constitutionally progress towards self- 
government except by decisions of the British Parliament. 
But while the statement describes accurately constitutional 
fact, it may be doubted whether it is, as it is apt to be 
taken to be, a true expression of fundamental realities. 
Do the future relations of India with the British Common- 
wealth depend exclusively and solely on the will of the 
British people ? As we have already seen, British rule in 
India has always rested on the consent of the people ; 
otherwise it would have been impossible for a handful of 
officials and a tiny army to control so vast a territory. Few 
Englishmen believe that if the people of India were deter- 
mined to assert their independence it would be worth 
while for Great Britain to attempt to hold them in subjection 
by force. 

If this is true, is it not important that the fact should 
be recognized ? The practical English mind takes note of 


I 2 1 

the constitutional position and concerns itself with the 
concrete measures required from time to time to give effect 
to the declared policy. The question of ultimate principle 
seems to it abstract, remote and unimportant. But to 
Indians the principle and the attitude implied in its recog- 
nition are all in all. The thing that to the Indian con- 
sciousness is unbearable, that touches pride and self-respect 
to the quick, is the thought that the destinies of India 
are dependent on an alien will. It is a position which 
every manly instinct must with ever growing vehemence 
repudiate. It is the prerogative of man to be master of 
his fate. If the right of Indians in the ultimate resort 
to control their own destinies is not frankly recognized, 
there would seem to be no choice left to them save to 
assert that claim by force. British statesmen are justified 
in asserting that Great Britain has a responsibility which 
she cannot light-heartedly lay aside. That is a fundamental 
fact in the situation. But it is no less fundamental a fact 
that she can discharge that responsibility only by the will 
of the Indian people ; however grave the consequences, 
she could not discharge it against their will. A true view 
of the situation must include full recognition of both these 

We are considering here an attitude of mind. It is 
suggested that the necessary basis of a better understanding 
is the frank acknowledgment that the future relation 
between India and Great Britain is not a matter to be 
decided exclusively by the latter but a question to be 
determined jointly in mutual consultation. We are not 
concerned here with the forms in which the recognition 
of what after all appears to be the plain truth of the situa- 
tion may find political expression. That undoubtedly is a 
question which presents great difficulties. But if some 
means could be discovered of convincing the Indian mind 
that Great Britain sincerely and honestly accepts the 
position that India, when her mind is made up, cannot 
be coerced, and that her destinies lie in the last resort in 
her own hands, a great obstacle to mutual understanding 


between the two countries would be removed. The 
rankling sense of subjection to an alien will would become 
less acute. The bitterness which the consciousness of 
inequality inevitably arouses and which can be mitigated 
only when the inequality ceases to exist would be at least 
partially assuaged. The representatives of the two peoples 
would meet as equals, not necessarily as equal in the present 
and temporary distribution of authority and power, but 
as having an equal concern in the solution of their common 
problems and as endeavouring on an honourable basis of 
equality and mutual respect to work out together the 
plans which will most conduce to the future prosperity of 
India. If this relationship could be established, the 
interests and impulses which are favourable to co-operation 
but are at present inhibited from expressing themselves 
by the sense of thwarted nationalism would be free to exert 
their influence ; and reason, now too often submerged in 
the flood of passionate feeling, would have a greater 
opportunity of making its voice heard. 

A passage in Mr Graham Wallas’ Our Social Heritage 
may help us to understand the psychological problem 
which underlies everything else in India. In it he directs 
attention to the fact that men’s feelings are quite differently 
affected when their desires are thwarted by natural causes 
and when they are hindered by human wills. ‘ Common 
usage refuses to say that the liberty of a Syrian peasant is 
equally violated if half his crops are destroyed by hail or 
locusts, half his income is taken by a Turkish tax-gatherer, 
or half his working hours are taken for road-construction 
by a German or French commander ; because human 
obstruction of our impulses produces in us, under certain 
conditions, reactions which are not produced by obstruc- 
tion due to non-human events. The reactions to human 
obstruction take the form, first of anger and an impulse to 
resist, and then, if resistance is found to be, or felt to be 
useless, of an exquisitely painful feeling of unfreedom ; 
and similar reactions do not follow non-human obstruction. 
Wounded self-respect, helpless hatred, and thwarted affec- 



tions are, that is to say, different psychological states 
from hunger and fatigue, though all are the results of 
obstructions to the carrying out of our impulses. When 
Shakespeare wishes to describe the ills which drive men 
to suicide he gives, 

“ The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, 

The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, 

The insolence of office and the spurns 
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,” 

and does not mention the want of food and clothing from 
which he must himself have suffered during his first wander- 
ings from Stratford.’ 1 

But if a change of outlook were to take place in the 
British mind, that would not of itself bring about a solution 
of India’s problems. Englishmen may be perfectly honest 
in their recognition that the destinies of India must be 
determined by the will of its own people and at the same 
time be equally honestly in doubt as to what that will is. 
An Englishman who sets himself with the sincerest intentions 
to learn by reading and conversations what Indians want 
is quickly made aware that the greatest divergence of view 
exists on vital questions. He finds forms of government 
ardently advocated by one section of Indian opinion which 
he has every reason to believe would be quite unacceptable 
to other sections of the population and which if brought 
into operation would in all probability be opposed by them 
with armed force. Deepest of all divisions is the pre- 
dominance of religious interests, as Mr Gandhi has clearly 
recognized, over common political interests. Even un- 
reserved sympathy with the national aspirations of the 
people of India cannot obscure the fact that India is on 
the road to nationhood but is not yet a nation. These are 
facts which no change in the British outlook and no amount 
of British goodwill have power to alter. Assume, though 
it may be a large assumption, that on the British side a 
‘ change of heart ’ were to take place as complete as Mr 

1 Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage , pp. 156-7. 


Gandhi might wish and that the British people were to 
recognize without reserve that the future of India must 
be decided by the will of its people. What if as a matter 
of fact that will, in the sense of a common national purpose, 
does not yet exist ? That is the problem on the Indian 
side. It is a problem that has nothing to do directly with 
Great Britain. It is created by the facts of Indian society, 
as it has been shaped by environment, history and age-long 

If we were better and wiser than we are, it might seem 
that the sensible course in the circumstances that have 
been described would be for Indians and British to unite 
in undertaking an unbiassed and impartial examination of the 
facts and in trying to find out what India as a whole really 
does want. If there were more mutual trust and more 
disinterested concern for the future well-being of India, 
it might be thought a good plan to choose some of the 
best minds, Indian and British, that can be found and ask 
them, with all the aid that can be got from modern psycho- 
logical and social science and historical research and extant 
political wisdom, to endeavour to ascertain the facts, 
material, social and psychological, which control the 
situation, and, so far as may be possible, the real mind of 
those who lead different sections of Indian opinion in 
regard to the main questions at issue. But if there is too 
little imagination and too little patience to make possible 
an effort to envisage the whole problem in a new and 
clearer light, if forces directed to narrower and more 
immediate ends are too powerful and if suspicion and 
mistrust are too rife and deep-rooted to permit of an 
attempt being made to reach through intellectual effort 
that deeper truth in which views at present opposed might 
perhaps be reconciled, then those who on either side guide 
the affairs of India must act as best they can with such 
insight and wisdom as they have, and if these prove 
insufficient, the price must be paid. 

Our discussion of Indian problems has not provided us 
with any clear-cut solution. It could hardly be otherwise. 



Questions such as we have been considering cannot be 
settled by a stroke of the pen. Only infinite patience, 
wisdom, courage and hope can find a solution of problems 
as baffling as any that have emerged in human history. 
But the discussion has not been fruitless if it has helped 
to illuminate two conceptions which came before us in 
earlier chapters — the meaning of equality and the necessity 
of taking account of facts. It has shown how great an 
improvement in relations would be effected if the implica- 
tions of equality were more clearly recognized ; and how 
this recognition, so far from being inconsistent with, 
requires as its necessary complement, the fullest recognition 
also of existing differences and of all relevant facts. What 
each of us can contribute individually to the solution of 
the great questions we have been considering is small. 
But it must always be borne in mind that the relations 
between peoples are not the affair of governments and 
political leaders alone. They depend also on the innumer- 
able interactions across national and racial frontiers of 
multitudes of individuals. Whether the sphere of our 
work be small or great, if it be our aim to base our judgments 
and actions on that reverence for men as men, which makes 
domination distasteful and comradeship a thing to be 
desired, and at the same time to seek truth without fear, 
we shall have done our part ; and those who have this aim 
will more and more find themselves united in an under- 
standing and fellowship that transcend the barriers of race. 
The rest is in the hands of God. 



r I 'HE last two chapters have dealt with the problems 
^ created by the intrusion of western races into the 
continents of Asia and Africa. We have now to reverse 
the picture and consider the invasion, actual or threatened, 
of the homelands of the white peoples by oriental or African 

For this second invasion no less than for the first the 
western peoples themselves have up to the present been 
primarily responsible. The difficulties which are to-day 
causing embarrassment to the United States and the 
British Empire are the result in the main of the restless 
energy of the white races. The same economic motive 
which carried western races to other continents in the 
search for new sources of wealth drove them to import 
labour from these continents to supply the home needs 
of the new countries in the West peopled by their 

The ten million Negroes in the United States are the 
descendants of the slaves brought there to meet the labour 
requirements of plantations. Indians had traded with the 
east coast of Africa for generations, but it was the needs of 
the white man that brought Indian coolies to settle in Natal. 
Chinese were brought to the United States and Canada as 
agricultural labourers and later to work in the mines. 
Similarly Asiatic labour was imported into Australia to 
meet the needs of the squatters in the earlier half of last 

But the presence of these alien communities quickly 
gave rise to a revulsion of feeling. They were felt to 
menace the integrity of the life and institutions of the 




white community. Strong measures, increasing in severity, 
were taken to meet the danger. The facts showing the 
state of things to-day are impressive. They reveal a settled 
determination on the part of every Anglo-Saxon community 
threatened with oriental immigration to set up impassable 
barriers against it. 

In the United States an act excluding Chinese labour 
immigration for a period of ten years was passed in 1882 
and subsequently renewed. In 1917 an Immigration Act 
was passed extending the prohibition to natives of terri- 
tories within a defined geographical area ; the area does 
not include Japan nor East China, but embraces the greater 
part of Central Asia, the whole of India and most of the 
islands of the Pacific. Government officers, ministers of 
religion, authors, artists, merchants, travellers for curiosity 
are exempted. By the Gentleman’s Agreement between 
the United States and Japan in 1907, the latter undertook 
to issue passports for the United States only to non-labourers 
and to those, whether labourers or not, who have already 
become domiciled in the United States and to their parents, 
wives and children ; and also agreed of its own accord 
to refrain from issuing passports to Japanese labourers to 
territories contiguous to the United States such as Canada 
and Mexico. Following on an agitation on the Pacific 
Coast against the Japanese, California in 1913 passed legisla- 
tion to prevent Japanese from owning land and later to 
prohibit them from leasing land or entering into i croppage 
contracts.’ In 1923, on an appeal by the Japanese, the 
Supreme Court of the United States declared the legislation 
to be constitutional. 

Canada formerly imposed a head tax on Chinese entering 
the country, but in 1923 a new Act was passed abolishing 
this tax and prohibiting the entry of all Chinese with the 
exception of government and consular officers with their 
suites, Canadian-born Chinese, merchants and students, 
and providing for the registration of all persons of Chinese 
origin in the Dominion. The immigration of Japanese is 
regulated by a Gentleman’s Agreement between Canada 


and Japan. By an arrangement between India and Canada 
Indians are admitted only for temporary purposes such as 
study, travel and business. 

The discovery of gold in Australia about the middle 
of last century led to an inrush of Chinese. From 1855 
onwards the different States began to pass legislation 
restricting the number of Chinese immigrants. Since 1901 
all immigrants have been required to pass a dictation test 
in a prescribed language, which in most cases is English. 
No Asiatic race is excluded specifically, as it is found that 
the present regulations give the desired control. 

In New Zealand all non-British subjects and all 
aboriginal inhabitants of any British dominion, colony or 
possession must obtain from the Minister of Customs a 
special permit to enter the country, given at his discretion. 
Chinese must pay £100 poll tax on entering. 

In South Africa the Immigrants Regulation Act passed 
in 1913 defined prohibited immigrants to include * any 
person or class of persons deemed by the Minister on 
economic grounds or on account of standard or habits of 
life to be unsuited to the requirements of the Union or any 
particular province thereof,’ and ‘ any person who is unable, 
by reason of deficient education, to read and write any 
European language to the satisfaction of the immigration 
officer.’ In the same year the Minister of the Interior 
proclaimed all Asiatics to be unsuited to the requirements 
of the Union, and the validity of the proclamation was 
upheld by the Supreme Court in 1923 by a majority of 
three to two. 

The problem of oriental immigration and the attitude 
of the United States and the British Dominions towards it, 
together with the closely related question of the treatment 
of the existing immigrant communities, which will engage 
our attention in a later chapter, are the most active and 
fruitful cause of racial misunderstanding and antagonism in 
the world to-day. On both sides they give rise to the most 
passionate feelings. Unless statesmanship can devise some 
means of removing or mitigating the causes of friction, the 



relations between the races are in danger of becoming in- 
creasingly and, it may be, incurably embittered. 

Let us examine some of the causes which bring about 
this state of tension. 

The over-population of Asiatic countries is a factor 
wdiich figures largely in popular discussions of the subject. 
Dr Lothrop Stoddard, for example, writes of ‘ a tremendous 
and steadily augmenting outward thrust of surplus coloured 
men from overcrowded coloured homelands,’ and asks, 
‘ where . . . should the congested coloured world tend 
to pour its accumulating human surplus, inexorably con- 
demned to emigrate or starve ? The answer is : into 
those emptier regions of the earth under white political 
control.’ 1 But it is doubtful whether the desire for an 
outlet for surplus population is an important factor in the 
attitude of oriental peoples to the immigration question, 
and there is no ground for believing that a state of over- 
population is in itself a reason which leads to emigration. 

Oriental immigration has up to the present been 
almost entirely parasitic. It has taken the form of im- 
ported or indentured labour or has followed in the wake of 
pioneer white settlements. There has been in recent times 
little independent pioneer settlement by Asiatic peoples 
corresponding to the expansion of the white races. There 
are under-populated areas in Asia itself into which expan- 
sion would be possible, but hitherto the peoples of that 
continent have not taken advantage of these opportunities. 

India is over-populated, yet, as Mr C. F. Andrews, who 
possesses a unique knowledge of Indian immigration, points 
out, one of the most marked characteristics of the people of 
India is their almost entire lack of the migratory instinct. 
‘ For the last thousand years, the only migration from India 
of any dimensions has been that brought about to supply 
cheap labour to the British colonies abroad.’ So strong 
is the religious and domestic conservatism of India that, 
notwithstanding the famine and want from which its peoples 
suffer, the existence of rich alluvial lands, largely untenanted, 
1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour , p. 9. 



within easy access across the sea have failed to attract 
Indian colonization ; and where Indian labour has been 
taken abroad by special inducements the drift back to 
India is persistent and unpreventable. £ As far as India 
is concerned,’ Mr Andrews concludes, ‘ the picture of a 
horde of hungry Asiatics waiting to enter Africa is a pure 
myth. The truth is . . . (that) the masses of India, with 
an acquiescence which is hard for the forceful and practical 
spirit of the West to understand, will prefer to suffer and 
die on Indian soil, rather than go abroad to a foreign land 
across the seas. . . . Even under the last compulsion of 
all, death by famine, there is no overpowering migratory 
impulse. Indeed the instinct is all the other way. For 
when, through any artificial pressure of recruitment, 
Indians do actually go out in ship-loads to foreign lands, 
then, not infrequently, the homesickness becomes so great 
that the burden of life is almost unendurable.’ 1 

India is not peculiar in this respect. Professor Carr- 
Saunders has shown that it is a mistake to suppose that 
over-population necessarily leads to emigration. Its effect 
is rather in the contrary direction. The lowering of the 
standard of living consequent upon over-population tends 
to produce a hopelessness of outlook which kills the spirit 
of enterprise. Moreover, as we shall see in a later chapter, 
population is continually pressing on the means of sub- 
sistence and continually being adjusted to the desirable 
level. Migrations take place at irregular intervals and 
must therefore have some other cause than the pressure of 
population, which is constant. In history we find that 
migrations have been due generally to the influence of 
an idea. 2 

The view of population as a tide pressing against external 
barriers and tending to overflow in migration is thus seen 
to be not in accord with the facts. At the same time it 
is no doubt true that as the world becomes increasingly 
knit together by more rapid communications and commercial 

1 C. F. Andrews, The Asiatic Question (pamphlet), pp. i, II, 13. 

2 A. M. Carr-Saunders, The Population Problem , pp. 297-304. 



intercourse, enterprising members of different races will 
more and more tend to seek a livelihood where economic 
opportunity is greatest. If no barriers existed economic 
forces would be likely to lead to a growing intermingling 
of races. 

While over-population does not necessarily result in 
emigration, occasions may arise when a nation definitely 
seeks outlets for an expanding population. The claim 
can hardly be put forward, however, that such expansion 
should take place into the settled territories of other states 
against the wishes of those already established there. Such 
a claim could be enforced only by conquest. There is no 
reason to suppose that the peoples of Asia wish to make 
such a claim. ‘We do not desire unrestricted emigration 
to the United States or British Dominions,’ stated one 
of the leading Japanese speakers at a conference on the 
subject of racial discrimination, arranged by the Japanese- 
American Association in Tokyo ; c we do not wish to 
interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries.’ 1 

The difficulty becomes most acute where a country 
is sparsely inhabited and there are large vacant spaces, as 
in Australia. A continent nearly twice as large as China 
proper and more than nine times as large as the Japanese 
Empire is occupied by a people numbering only five 
millions . 2 In an earlier chapter one of the grounds on 
which western rule in Africa was justified was that the 
products of the tropics are necessary to the welfare of 
mankind as a whole, and that if the peoples of tropical 
Africa are incapable of developing these rich territories those 
who are capable of doing this must not be refused the 
opportunity. The peoples of Asia can plead that the 

1 Bee-line Discussions on Racial Discrimination (published by the Nissei-Kai, 
1919), p. 14. 

2 It is doubtful, however, how much of the area of the Australian 
continent is really inhabitable by any race. One estimate is that of the 
nearly 2000 million acres only 40 millions are arable land, and a recent 
writer maintains that ‘Australia, when treated as a place to live, shrinks 
to the size of Spain, or possibly Italy.’ (E. M. East, Mankind at the 
Crossroads , p. 85.) 


same argument applies to Australia if its lands remain 
untilled. The force of this contention is recognized by- 
Australians themselves. The Prime Minister, Mr Bruce, 
said in a recent speech that ‘ if they did not develop and 
populate Australia they could not continue to hold it 
indefinitely. . . . There were teeming millions around 
them in the Pacific, and Australia had the greatest un- 
developed lands left on the face of the globe. . . . They 
had one of the great potential sources of wealth for the 
world, and under such a regime a few selfish people would 
not be allowed to hold that great heritage unless they 
developed it.’ 1 

While a case like Australia is apt to provoke bitterness 
because the claim of a small community to monopolize 
large tracts which it does not effectively occupy seems 
unfair, our discussion has shown that the resentment felt 
by oriental peoples against the restriction of immigration 
does not arise primarily from the desire to find outlets for 
surplus population. The cause of the intense and bitter 
feeling which exists is racial discrimination. Seen from 
the oriental standpoint the question is fundamentally one 
of status. 

The sensitiveness of Japan to her position among the 
Powers is manifest in the speech made by the late Marquis 
Okuma, a former Prime Minister, at the conference in 
Tokyo which has already been referred to. ‘ It is clear,’ 
he says, ‘ that the principles of Benevolence and Equality, 
which are the basic elements of morality, can never 
harmonize with the attempt deliberately to differentiate 
mankind in superior and inferior races and accord 
discriminatory treatment. The highest principle is that 
which sustains the mutual existence of mankind by 
Benevolence and Equality based on Justice and Humanity. 
It should be remembered, however, that every righteous 
order has an expedient. Therefore, my insistence on the 
equal treatment of all mankind does not necessarily imply 
that all nations, irrespective of their present conditions, 

1 The Times, October 27th, 1923. 



should be granted equal treatment. What I demand 
amounts to this : that the racial standard should be replaced 
by the standard of civilization. If one asks for equal 
treatment to a nation which finds it difficult to remove 
even extra-territoriality, he is asking for something im- 
possible. A nation at this stage should be given material 
and moral aid to promote its civilization, and when it 
is sufficiently civilized to stand shoulder to shoulder with 
other Powers, then it should be granted equal treatment.’ 1 
‘ What the Japanese people demand is simply justice,’ said 
another speaker at the same conference. ‘ We demand 
that our people should receive an equal treatment, legally 
and politically as Europeans, and we are worthy of a fair 
and just treatment.’ 2 

Similarly in an election manifesto of the Swaraj party 
in India Great Britain is charged with denying Indians 
‘ at home and abroad the most elementary rights of 
citizenship. It is daily becoming abundantly clear that 
the British, while professing equality of treatment, are in 
practice subjecting the whole Indian nation to humiliation 
and insult in all parts of the world.’ The same sensitiveness 
to racial discrimination might be illustrated by hundreds of 
quotations from Indian papers. The Hindu , for example, 
in commenting on the resolutions of the Imperial Confer- 
ence, says, ‘ Where is the consistency in asking India to 
take a seat at the Council table if an Indian — and not only 
that, but no Indian — is fit to live side by side with an 
Australian or a Canadian ? ’ 3 

It is not suggested that the matter is purely one of 
sentiment. There are real disabilities imposed on Asiatic 
peoples by the restriction of immigration. It closes against 
them doors of economic opportunity. But there are 
disabilities which one may dislike and yet tolerate. There 
are others which cannot be endured. The sting in the 
restriction of oriental immigration lies in racial discrimina- 

1 Bee-line Discussions on Racial Discrimination , pp. 50-1. 

3 Ibid., p. 12. 

2 The Hindu, August 12th, 1921. 


tion, in the sense that what is freely conceded to others 
is denied to Asiatics on the ground of race alone. It 
does not in any way minimize the difficulty to recognize 
that it is to a large extent a matter of sentiment. The 
feeling of honour, the sense of what is due to oneself and 
to one’s people, is among the most powerful forces by which 
human conduct is determined. 

Rightly to be great 
Is not to stir without great argument, 

But greatly to find quarrel in a straw 
When honour’s at the stake. 

The explanation of the sensitiveness of the peoples of 
Asia in regard to the restriction of immigration must be 
sought not only in the particular issues in debate but in 
the general situation in the world to-day. Western races 
hold the predominance in wealth and power. They evince 
in a hundred ways a determination to assert their superiority 
and to keep other races in a position of subordination and 
inferiority. Against such an attitude Asia is in revolt. 
Everything which savours of racial discrimination is viewed 
with suspicion and met with a determined hostility. The 
feelings evoked in dealing with a practical question like the 
control of immigration are fed from many other sources 
than the issues directly at stake, and this adds enormously 
to the difficulty of finding a satisfactory solution. 

Approaching the question now from the other side, we 
may ask what it is that creates in every Anglo-Saxon 
community threatened with oriental immigration a resolute 
determination to exclude it. The answer is that it is the 
instinct of self-preservation. 

There can be no doubt that the presence of a large 
oriental population in a western country would in the 
course of time change the character of its civilization. 
The resulting civilization might be better or worse ; it 
would certainly be different. We have seen reason to 
believe that different racial stocks differ from one another 
to some extent in their hereditary endowment. The 



dominating position of the white races and the arrogant 
claims often made on their behalf make it difficult to assert 
the existence of difference without the question of superi- 
ority and inferiority being brought in. But difference 
need have nothing to do with superiority and inferiority. 
The question of difference in natural endowment between 
the races may be considered as one of scientific fact without 
the intrusion of feeling. If innate differences exist they 
will naturally find expression in the development of different 
types of civilization, and the world will be all the richer for 
this variety. Apart from the question of innate differences, 
when immigration takes place on a large scale the new- 
comers bring with them and pass on to their children 
their own traditions and civilization. Thus if Japanese 
immigration were to take place on an extended scale into 
Canada the civilization of Canada would cease to be 
Canadian and would become partially Japanese. 

European immigrants are far more easily assimilated 
because they come from countries whose civilization is of 
similar origin. The culture and institutions of European 
nations have been derived from the same sources. Religion, 
laws and manners were for centuries in most important 
respects the same. Education followed the same general 
lines. An educated man could travel in any country with- 
out feeling himself to be in surroundings wholly strange. 
Yet notwithstanding this community of tradition among 
the peoples of Europe, the differences among them are 
sufficient to create difficulties for the United States in 
regard to immigration. Recent developments show that 
Americans are realizing the difficulty of building up a real 
national unity and common civilization out of the hetero- 
geneous communities coming to the country from Eastern 
and Southern Europe. ‘ The intelligent Japanese,’ says a 
recent American writer, 4 learning these facts, will look 
upon the anti- Japanese sentiment in California as a very 
insignificant ripple on a tidal wave of national reaction 
against all alien groups.’ 1 As is pointed out in the volume 

1 W. B. Pitkin, Must we Fight Japan ? p. 375* 


Emigration and Immigration issued by the International 
Labour Office, whereas during the nineteenth century 
migration was generally speaking unhindered, almost every 
country has begun since the war to give attention to the 
question of the composition of its population, and has 
passed legislation regulating migration. 1 

The wide differences between the civilizations of the 
West and those of Asia must be recognized as a fact to 
be objectively considered and allowed for independently 
of any question of superiority or inferiority. The moulding 
influence of centuries of history cannot be treated as if it 
did not exist. Diversity of tradition gives rise to a multi- 
tude of differences in ways of thinking, feeling and acting. 
The preservation of its tradition unimpaired, save in so 
far as it voluntarily assimilates from outside sources what 
meets its need, is a vital interest of a people. In all ques- 
tions touching the domestic or racial integrity of social 
groups, ‘ the issues presented by the injury of invasion,’ 
it has been justly said, 4 are quite as serious as those 
popularly associated with the injuries of exclusion.’ 2 

If the people of the world are to live together there 
must gradually grow up a common world civilization. 
But this will be richer if it includes a variety of types. It 
is not desirable to blur the individuality of peoples, formed 
by the historical experiences of many centuries. It seems 
better that each should develop along its own lines and make 
its distinctive contribution to the good of the whole. 
The attempt to combine in a common social and political 
life two entirely different traditions may prevent each of 
them from attaining its best expression and is almost 
certain to result in friction. 

In oriental immigration a western people sees a menace 
not only to its political but also to its economic life. The 
latter often presents itself as a more immediate and 
formidable danger. Industrial and commercial jealousy of 
actual or potential rivals is common in all societies. But 

1 Emigration and Immigration , International Labour Office, 1922, p. xiv. 

2 E. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy , p. 77, note. 


l 37 

in the case of Asiatic immigration, what is feared is not 
merely competition but the danger of being supplanted 
altogether. Standards of living have risen in the West 
far beyond those which prevail in the East. Asiatics are 
accustomed to work harder for less reward than the white 
man. They can thus underlive him and oust him from his 

We may take the following description of what takes 
place in California as seen by the American farmer. ‘ The 
American who feels the “ Yellow Peril ” acutely is the 
independent small farmer — the man with one or two 
hundred acres off which he seeks to get a living and small 
competence for himself and his children. He has, let us 
say, been growing berries or sugar beets or grapes or vege- 
tables on his place for many years, all of which he has been 
selling in competition with other Americans whose standard 
of work and living has been the same as his own or nearly 
so. His farming neighbours work ten or twelve hours a 
day at the most. They send their boys and girls to school 
for the greater part of the year (and please remember that 
here in California the greater part of the year is work-time 
on the farm, thanks to the unusual climate). Their wives 
work around the house and perhaps attend to a few chickens, 
but rarely toil in the fields save when there is a shortage of 
help at harvest time. And the whole family takes Sunday 
off whenever it can. 

4 Into a community of such people there comes a keen 
and thrifty Japanese. For a year or two he may work 
around as a farm hand, partly for the sake of making money, 
but chiefly in order to discover the quality and promise 
of the soil in the district. Finally he rents a piece of 
ground, and then appear wife and children, and often, too, 
a small army of friends, all of his same race. All of these 
fall to, working at a pace which bewilders and horrifies 
the Americans thereabouts. Fourteen, sixteen, and even 
eighteen hours in the fields a day are schedules frequently 
observed in Japanese communities. And the Japanese are 
not visibly injured by it. They seem to be a stock that 


has been selected through centuries of stern competition 
for their ability to stand such a strain.’ 1 

Experience seems to show that the immigration of aliens 
who are regarded as a separate community and who are 
accustomed to lower economic standards often leads to the 
elimination of the original inhabitants. For one reason or 
another they simply disappear. The original New England 
stock has as the result of successive waves of immigration 
practically vanished from the territory in which it originally 
settled. In California the white population tends to move 
away from the areas into which the Japanese come. ‘ It 
is a universal rule of population growth,’ says an American 
writer who gives a number of facts from different countries 
in support of his contention, 4 that people with low standards 
of living have a higher birth-rate than those with higher 
standards of living. ... A constantly replenished supply 
of “ cheap labour ” means a constantly larger proportion of 
our population coming from the races and nationalities 
furnishing this cheap labour and, obversely, a constantly 
smaller proportion from the groups with higher standards 
of living. This is as certain as it is that the sun will rise 
to-morrow.’ 2 Gresham’s law in fact applies to peoples ; 
bad currency (in the sense of lower economic standards) 
drives out the good. The population which can live more 
cheaply will supplant and dispossess that which has higher 
economic standards. 

It is the acknowledged right of a nation to defend its 
existence, its institutions, its economic interests against 
wanton aggression from without. It can have no less right 
to defend them against insidious attack from within. It 
is no greater evil for a people to be conquered, enslaved 
or exterminated by an external foe than to be gradually 
supplanted and dispossessed by a different nationality or 
race ; though the former process may be rapid and the 
latter slow, the result is the same. Protective measures 

1 W. B. Pitkin, Must we Fight Japan ? pp. 205-6. 

2 Warren S. Thompson in Pitkin, Must we Fight Japan ? pp. 464., 



are as legitimate in the one case as in the other. There 
may be much room for discussion in regard to the means 
by which the end is to be achieved, but oriental peoples 
can hardly dispute the right of the Anglo-Saxon com- 
munities to take the measures necessary to conserve their 
national existence and their distinctive institutions. 

Here, then, we find ourselves confronted with two ulti- 
mates. For their national existence, their traditions, their 
cherished institutions men will fight to the end. To resist 
unfair discrimination, to win equal rights with other men, 
to vindicate their honour men are likewise prepared to die. 
Is there any way by which these deeply opposed points of 
view may be reconciled and harmonized ? 

We may note the attempts which statesmanship has 
made thus far to deal with the problem. In the British 
Empire an endeavour has been made to arrive at a tolerable 
arrangement through the conception of reciprocity. The 
Imperial Conference in 1918 passed the following resolu- 
tion with the assent of the representatives of India : ‘ It 
is an inherent function of the Governments of the several 
communities of the British Commonwealth, including 
India, that each should enjoy complete control of the 
composition of its own population by means of restriction 
on immigration from any of the other communities.’ Here 
a principle is laid down which all the component parts of 
the Empire are entitled to apply equally ; all are placed on 
the same basis. It does not provide a complete solution 
of the problem ; no single principle can do this. It is 
limited also by the fact that India has not yet achieved 
complete independence. But it recognizes that if western 
communities claim the right to control the composition of 
their population, India is entitled to the same right. There 
must be reciprocity. 

In the United States and Canada the attempt has been 
made to control immigration without injury to the self- 
respect of Japan by a “ Gentleman’s Agreement.” The 
United States and Canada have refrained from passing 
exclusion laws against Japanese, being content with an 


honourable undertaking from the Japanese government 
(the precise terms of which have not been made public), 
that passports will be given only to those Japanese citizens 
who do not belong to the labouring classes. This arrange- 
ment has not, however, availed to prevent an agitation of 
increasing violence on the Pacific Coast against the admission 
of Japanese, and a recent writer has pointed out that from 
the American standpoint the plan is psychologically defec- 
tive . 1 Since it places the sole responsibility for enforcing 
the control of immigration on a foreign government, it is 
easy when popular feeling becomes excited to encourage 
the belief that the provisions of the agreement are being 
evaded. The privilege of control by the country of emi- 
gration alone is one which is granted to no other nation 
in the world. When feeling reaches a state of panic, the 
only means of allaying it is an American not a Japanese 
guarantee. The writer quoted, therefore, does not regard 
the Gentleman’s Agreement as a satisfactory solution. A 
Japanese exclusion law would be equally open to objection 
as it would violate the racial sensitiveness of the Japanese. 
The only means of dealing with the difficulty seems to him 
to be an exclusion treaty. A treaty represents an agreement 
arrived at by mutual discussion and understanding. It is 
a way of dealing with the difficulties by consent. 

In the light of the preceding discussion the following 
would appear to be essential conditions of an understanding 
in regard to this exceedingly difficult question. 

It is necessary that oriental peoples should admit the 
right of western communities to control the composition 
of their own population. They must recognize that what 
is at stake for western peoples is their standards of life, 
their institutions and distinctive type of life, their integrity 
and continuance as a nation. There can be no solution of 
the problem which does not take account of the fear that 
these interests are menaced. Until this fear has been 
allayed calm and profitable discussion is impossible. So 
long as the fear remains it will lead to acts of injustice and 
1 Raymond Leslie Buell in Foreign Affairs, December 1923, pp. 295-309. 


H 1 

provocative conduct, just as a man who feels himself being 
suffocated is apt to strike out wildly and blindly. If a 
rational treatment of the subject is to be achieved, the 
first step must be to establish a feeling of security. The 
western peoples must be assured that what they are re- 
solved to protect will infallibly be protected. The barriers 
against what they fear must be made water-tight. Means 
of achieving this must be devised which they will recognize 
to be adequate. The problem is not merely one of finding 
appropriate machinery. It is also one of psychology ; the 
machinery must be such as to inspire confidence in its 
efficacy. Unreason and violence will cease only when a 
sense of security has been created. 

While protection against the intrusion of an alien 
element into the national life must be made effective and 
complete, every effort must be made, on the other hand, to 
accomplish this by measures which are compatible with the 
self-respect of the peoples of Asia. For them also issues 
are involved for which men have always been ready, if 
need be, to die. 

The aim must be to arrive by mutual consent at an 
arrangement recognized by both sides to be reasonable. A 
policy of discrimination forcibly imposed without the 
consent of the other party is bound to provoke resentment. 
Mr Joseph Chamberlain pointed this out clearly at the 
Imperial Conference in 1897 when proposals were under 
consideration for excluding all Asiatics from Australia. 
The traditional policy of the British Empire, he maintained, 
‘ makes no distinction in favour of, or against, race or colour ; 
and to exclude, by reason of their colour, or by reason of 
their race, all Her Majesty’s Indian subjects, or even all 
Asiatics, would be an act so offensive to those peoples that 
it would be most painful, I am quite certain, to Her Majesty 
to have to sanction it.’ 1 

If oriental peoples are asked to recognize the right of 
western nations to protect the integrity of their civilization, 

1 Proceedings of a Conference between the Secretary of State for the Colonies 
and the Premiers of the Self-Governing Colonies, 1897, C. 8596, p. 13. 


the latter ought to recognize no less unreservedly that the 
relations between peoples must be based on reciprocity 
and fair-dealing and not on domination and superior force. 
Reciprocity will acquire a fuller meaning with the economic 
and political progress of oriental peoples, and there can 
be no doubt that as Asiatic peoples increase in strength 
and become able to negotiate on more equal terms their 
claims will receive increasing recognition. But if the 
western peoples are wise they will not wait till necessity 
compels but will set themselves to remove as far as they 
can unnecessary causes of friction and bitterness. 

In return for security two concessions might be made, 
and if made with goodwill might go far to improve relations. 

If means can be devised to bar the doors effectively 
against the intrusion of numbers, entrance should be made 
as easy as possible for those for whom the door remains 
open — for officials, students, travellers and merchants. 
Everything that might suggest racial discrimination should 
be eliminated. It should not be difficult, if the will were 
there, to establish a tradition by which respect for a different 
civilization would lead to special courtesy being shown to 
such guests ; at any rate discourtesy in such cases should 
meet with severe condemnation. It may prove difficult 
in practice to combine rigorous enforcement of necessary 
prohibitions with freedom from disabilities or discrimin- 
atory treatment for those to whom the prohibitions do not 
apply. But efficiency and courtesy are not incompatible, 
and if the appointment of additional officials to cope with 
the difficulty should be required, the expenditure of a few 
hundreds of thousands of pounds for this purpose would 
be infinitely less costly than the increase of armaments to 
which the growth of ill-feeling must inevitably lead. 

Secondly, if the gates are firmly closed against further 
immigration the rights of those already admitted might be 
recognized. It is discriminatory and unjust treatment 
of their compatriots overseas that most of all stirs indignation 
in the countries of Asia. To remove the cause of this 
resentment would contribute materially to the peace of the 



world. Moreover the responsibility for the presence of 
these immigrant communities in many instances, as has 
been shown, rests on the western peoples themselves. 
They have obligations which they cannot honourably 

This solution of the problem on the Pacific Coast is 
proposed by the writer in Foreign Affairs who has already 
been quoted. It is improbable, he holds, that the Japanese 
government would ever consent to an exclusion treaty 
‘ unless the discriminatory legislation now imposed on 
Japanese in the United States is repealed. America has 
an obligation toward its present Japanese population which 
it cannot ignore. This population is here at our invitation 
and under our laws. It is therefore entitled to the same 
treatment we accord other immigrant groups. ... A 
treaty embodying these provisions would satisfy our 
demand for exclusion and Japan’s demand for racial 
equality. ... It would prove to the Japanese that 
we really mean what we say, because it would grant 
Japanese lawfully in this country the same treatment we 
grant Europeans.’ 1 

The attempt has been made in this chapter to state 
the points of view which must somehow be reconciled. 
The difficulties of finding an adjustment are enormous. 
The practical problem of devising machinery which will 
completely achieve its purpose and at the same time not 
do more than is necessary for that purpose nor cause need- 
less annoyance is one that much skill and ingenuity will 
be needed to solve. A still graver difficulty lies in the 
degree to which on both sides suspicions have been aroused 
and feelings inflamed. In the West the fear of being 
dispossessed and supplanted has in some instances taken so 
firm a hold of the minds of those in direct contact with 
oriental competition that the impulse of self-defence has 
passed over into a mood of aggression that will be content 
only with the complete elimination of the competitors. 
Among the peoples of Asia the injustices which their 
1 Foreign Affairs, December 1923, pp. 308-9. 


countrymen have suffered have entered so deeply into the 
soul that many can see nothing but racial arrogance and 
racial discrimination in measures rendered necessary by 
quite different reasons. Passion is in command and the 
voice of reason cannot gain a hearing. In dealing with 
such issues the weaknesses of popular government are 
specially apparent. Democracies may not deliberately and 
criminally plot aggression as autocrats may do, but they 
are often ignorant, short-sighted and precipitate. The 
statesmen of two countries may agree on a policy which 
will be just to the real interests of both, but they may find 
it impossible to obtain for it the necessary popular support, 
so easy is it for interested parties to misrepresent its nature 
and rouse popular prejudice and passion against it. Yet 
formidable as the difficulties are we need not despair of 
arriving at an arrangement compatible with the permanent 
interests and the self-respect of all parties, if men of good- 
will on both sides with a desire to understand and to see 
things as they are set themselves in mutual co-operation to 
find it. 



TN the last chapter we considered the political and 
-*■ economic reasons for the erection of barriers to keep 
different races apart from one another. The biological 
reason was only touched upon incidentally. But it is 
this aspect of the subject which in the view of many is 
the most serious. Professor Conklin asserts, for example, 
that ‘ generally immigration is regarded merely as an 
economic and political problem, but these aspects of it are 
temporary and insignificant as compared with its biological 
consequences .’ 1 To the question of the intermixture of 
races, therefore, we must now turn. 

Our first enquiry must be how far there are objections 
on biological grounds to mating between members of 
different races. 

The effect of crossing between two different stocks is 
to produce in many instances, though not in all, an increase 
of vigour in the first generation. This increase is not long 
maintained in subsequent generations. Crossing also pro- 
duces variability, and this is an advantage. There is always 
the possibility of new favourable combinations arising. 
The leading nations of the world are all sprung from an 
intermingling of different stocks. 

In the view of many biologists, however, this applies 
only to the mingling of stocks that are closely related, that 
is, to the subdivisions of the principal racial families. 
Crossings between the more distantly related stocks do not 
give good results. The reasons given for this are that the 
thousands of hereditary units which go to the making of an 
individual tend to be transmitted in compact blocks, and 

1 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment, p. 303. 
v 145 


that each of the main racial families of mankind ‘ has 
a series of character complexes, built up through ages of 
selection and compatible with one another, and by crossing 
such complexes are broken apart.’ 1 

When two races amalgamate, the hereditary units 
derived from each stock will in succeeding generations be 
sorted out in every variety of recombination. Since this 
implies great variability, the theoretic possibility exists of 
obtaining a better combination, but in practice the chances 
against such a result are enormous. As Professor East puts 
it, ‘ though the variability opened up by primary race 
crosses is so great that if an all-knowing ruler were per- 
mitted to select and mate at will a better type might be 
evolved ; in the slow-going, stumbling world of reality in 
which we live, it would be the height of folly to recommend 
it. The machinery of the two organisms has been smoothed 
into an easy-running whole by the very fact of survival 
during the last half a million years. He is a bold tinker 
who wishes to try his hand at exchanging parts. The 
stock-breeder will need no argument to support this con- 
tention. He would like to produce a better breed of 
milch cows. He knows what he wants. He can select as 
stringently as he desires. He realizes the possibilities in 
hybridization. Nevertheless, he laughs down the man who 
suggests hybridizing the Jersey with the Hereford. His 
knowledge of heredity makes him appreciate the difficulties 
in the way.’ 2 

But while this view that the mating of widely separated 
stocks is biologically undesirable has too weighty support to 
be set aside, it cannot yet be regarded as a conclusion 
based on definitely ascertained facts. ‘ Only experience can 
determine,’ as Professor Conklin says, ‘ whether a certain 

1 A. M. Carr-Saunders, The Population Problem , p. 380. 

2 Edward M. East, Mankind at the Crossroads , p. 127. The view of 
Professor Carr-Saunders and Professor East that the crossing of distantly 
related stocks is biologically undesirable is also expressed by Professor 
William M c Dougall ( The Group Mind, pp. 242-5) and Professor J. Arthur 
Thomson ( What is Man ? p. 1 26). 



cross will yield inferior or superior types ’ ; 1 some hybrids 
are inferior to the parent stocks while some are vastly 
superior. This experience at present we do not have. 

The results of racial intermingling between the more 
widely separated races have undoubtedly in many instances 
not been happy. But this may be due to other than 
biological reasons. In many instances the children of 
mixed unions may be the offspring of inferior members of 
one or other race or of both and so have received a poor 
inheritance. Apart from this, man differs from other 
animals, as we saw in a former chapter, in the fact that 
tradition plays an enormous part in his development. 
The domestic environment of a half-caste population is as 
a rule adverse to healthy growth. Such a population is 
in many cases the offspring of illicit unions, and the children 
grow up without any real home. The social environment 
is often equally injurious both physically and morally ; 
prejudice, hostility and lack of opportunity may stunt and 
warp character. Most serious of all, perhaps, is the extent 
to which a half-caste population is cut off from sharing in 
a national tradition which is one of the most powerful 
forces in creating stable character. ‘ The mulatto is neither 
of one race nor the other, and he knows it. He is an out- 
caste. There is no tradition which he naturally absorbs. 
He neither grows up with the pride of the white man 
nor with the feeling of community with his coloured 
relatives. ... In the world of tradition there is no home 
for him .’ 2 

So many factors are involved in the growth of a com- 
munity that it is not possible to isolate one and attribute 
results exclusively to it. South America is frequently 
pointed to as a disastrous result of racial intermixture. 
Yet Lord Bryce arrives at the conclusion that the facts of 

1 E. G. Conklin, Heredity and Environment, p. 303. 

2 A. M. Carr-Saunders, The Problem of Population, p. 453. In the United 
States the mulattoes are treated as negroes, and what is true of half-caste 
populations in some parts of the world does not apply there in the same 


South America show that ‘ the fusion of two parent stocks, 
one more advanced, the other more backward, does not 
necessarily result in producing a race inferior to the stronger 
parent or superior to the weaker. The mestizo in Peru is 
not palpably inferior in intellect to the Spanish colonial of 
unmixed blood, but seems to be substantially his equal.’ 1 

There are few subjects on which unwarranted generaliza- 
tions are more common and on which greater caution is 
needed than the results of racial intermixture in history. 
Even high scientific authorities seem ready on this subject 
to desert the solid ground of fact and give free rein to their 
imagination. Professor William M c Dougall, for example, 
in his book, ‘The Group Mind , compares the cultures of 
Europe, China and India and suggests that the relative 
stagnation of China may be due to the population being 
too homogeneous, that the lack of progress in India may 
be the result of too great heterogeneity in its racial com- 
position, and that Europe may owe its position to the 
repeated crossing and recrossing of stocks not too widely 
different in constitution. 2 This leaves altogether out of 
account the enormously important factor of climate and 
the infinite variety of historical influences which have 
played a part in the development of each people. 

In regard to the biological effect of racial intermixture, 
then, the result at which we arrive is that, however definitely 
anthropologists and psychologists, as the result of their 
studies, may incline to one view or another, the facts are 
still lacking on which an assured conclusion can be based. 
Judgments founded on the historical results of racial inter- 
mixture cannot be regarded as decisive since it is impossible 
to separate the biological factor from the natural and 
social environment in which the intermingling occurred. 
In judging of the offspring of mixed unions, adequate 
statistical information, which alone could determine the 
point, is lacking even in regard to such measurable qualities j 
as physique, longevity and resistance to disease. The 

1 James Bryce, South America, p. 481. 

2 William M c Dougall, The Group Mind, p. 244. 



accurate measurement of mental qualities is, as we have 
seen , 1 a still more remote achievement. The evidence 
seems to show that mating between widely separated 
stocks is not likely to yield good results ; but if we bear in 
mind the distinction, to which attention was called in an 
earlier chapter , 2 between a race and a particular strain or 
line of descent, it would be difficult for biological science 
in the present state of knowledge to give a decided answer 
to the question whether, for example, the racial composition 
of the United States would from the biological standpoint 
be benefited most by the introduction of a superior 
Mongolian strain or of a less good strain belonging to a 
more closely related stock from Europe. 

We may enquire, next, what are the causes of the 
widely felt repugnance to intermarriage between those who 
belong to different races. It cannot be due to reflexion on 
the biological facts which we have just been considering, 
since knowledge of these facts is recent and is the possession 
of comparatively few. 

It must be noted that the dislike of inter-racial marriage 
is much less strong among some peoples than among others. 
The French appear to be singularly free from it. A French 
writer, in discussing mixed marriages in Annam, sees no 
objection to them so long as the children are not regarded 
as half-breeds, but are treated as belonging definitely to 
one race or the other. Mixed marriages he regards as 
the best means of assimilating the two civilizations, though 
he recognizes that conditions of life in Annam are not 
yet sufficiently advanced to make it desirable for French 
women as a rule to marry into Annamite society. An 
Annamite wife has the same social status as her French 
husband both in France and in Annam . 3 This seems to 
be the prevalent view among the French. The marriage 
of French women to men of other races apparently meets 
with no strong objection. Among Anglo-Saxon peoples, on 
the other hand, there exists a strong prejudice against inter- 

1 Pp. 67-70. 2 Pp. 60-1. 

3 Depeche Coloniale, December 8th, 1923. 


racial unions. Marriages between members of different 
races are forbidden by law in many of the Southern States, 
and where there is no legal bar the social penalties are often 
an almost equally strong deterrent. 

It must be observed, further, that repugnance to inter- 
marriage is not necessarily a bar to sexual intercourse 
between the races. Wherever white and coloured races 
are in contact, whether it be in North America or South 
America or Asia or Africa the growth of a half-caste 
population is evidence of an intermingling of blood. It 
too often happens that those who would resort to the 
most violent measures to prevent or punish intermarriage 
between white and black are not averse to keeping black 
women as concubines. The explanation of these facts, as 
Sir Arthur Keith has pointed out, ‘ lies in the fact that 
Nature has grafted in the human mind instinctive impulses 
which are far stronger than those designated as race- 
prejudice. Nature has spent her most painstaking efforts 
in establishing within the human organization a mechanism 
to ensure, above all other ends, that the individual shall 
continue. The instinct to propagate is the strongest of 
the instinctive impulses with which mankind has been 
fitted. It dominates and conquers the race instinct on all 
occasions save one. Sex impulse is the battery which 
breaks down race barriers. Race instinct becomes the 
master of sexual impulse only when a pure stock has 
established itself as a complete and growing community 
in a new country. Sexual impulses are the endowments of 
individual men and women ; they dominate and are 
manifested by individuals, whereas race antipathies are 
manifestations not of the individual, but of the mass. 
Race instinct comes into play only when men, women, 
and children of the same stock are organized into com- 
munities. Until such a community is organized sex instinct 
traffics freely across racial barriers ; once organized, race 
instinct conquers or restrains hybridization.’ 1 The repug- 
nance to intermarriage is thus rather a social bar prompted 
1 Arthur Keith, 'Nationality and Race , p. 13. 



by a desire to maintain the purity and integrity of the 
community than a natural repulsion on the part of indi- 
viduals. Sexual impulses, as Sir Arthur Keith says, belong 
to individual men and women ; the ban on intermarriage is 
imposed and insisted on by society. 

The reasons for the imposition of this ban are not far 
to seek. Where the opposition to inter-racial marriage is 
shown by a dominant race the pride of class which is 
natural to an aristocracy is no doubt an important psycho- 
logical factor. The patricians in Rome, the nobility in 
Europe, the Brahmins in India have jealously sought 
to preserve the purity of their blood. But while this 
motive, when it is present, plays an active part, social 
disapproval of inter-racial marriage is by no means confined 
to the dominant race. Mixed marriages are often viewed 
with disfavour by both communities. The repugnance to 
intermarriage seems to be due to the natural desire of a 
social group to maintain its integrity. Religious differences 
may be a decisive bar to intermarriage, as in India between 
Hindus and Mohammedans. In the same way a community 
which has a distinctive tradition and social life of its 
own desires to protect its customs and institutions from 
the disturbing effect of alien influences, and the intrusion 
of such influences is immediately suggested by marked 
differences in physical form. 

Where races differ widely in physical appearance, an 
instinctive dislike to the offspring of mixed unions because 
they do not conform to any familiar type may play a part 
in intensifying the feeling of repugnance to racial inter- 
marriage. When members of nearly related stocks marry, 
the children pass without notice as belonging to one or 
other of the parent stocks. But when intermarriage takes 
place between races markedly different from one another 
the children do not resemble either and have an unfamiliar 
appearance. In the course of time a half-caste population 
will no doubt come to constitute a new type and to take its 
place among the recognized types of mankind. But till 
this takes place, the sense that the offspring of mixed 


marriages do not seem to belong anywhere or to fit into 
any of the known categories may have a good deal to do 
with the emotional distaste for mixed marriages. 

These various influences, combined and heightened by 
association, and appealing to the deep-seated and powerful 
instinct which leads members of a community to defend, 
even at the cost of their lives, its existence and institutions, 
sufficiently explain the severity of the disapproval with 
which a society regards the marriage of its members with 
those who belong to a different community. The social 
opposition to such marriages naturally becomes most 
intense when they are between members of different races, 
since the differences between races are among the widest 
and deepest that exist. 

What, then, in the light of the facts and considerations 
which have come before us, ought to be our attitude 
towards intermarriage between different races ? In seeking 
an answer to this question it is necessary to distinguish 
between the occasional marriage of individuals belonging 
to races which have comparatively few contacts with one 
another and racial amalgamation on a large scale which 
may arise where two races inhabit the same geographical 
area. In the former case the number of mixed marriages 
is not likely to be large enough to have any appreciable 
effect upon the racial composition of either people. It 
will no more lead to racial fusion than occasional marriages 
between English and French people destroy or even blur 
the distinctness of the two nationalities. It is quite another 
matter when the intermingling of blood takes place on a 
scale which must result in a change in the type and 
character of the community. 

Take first the question of racial amalgamation. We have 
seen that there is no conclusive evidence of the effect 
of uniting widely different stocks, but that the weight of 
evidence is that the result will be undesirable. 

We saw in an earlier chapter that characters in inherit- 
ance once lost are lost finally. They disappear altogether. 
The question we are considering touches the basis of man’s 



natural existence. Man is distinguished from the rest of 
creation by the capacity to remake himself and his world ; 
and his life reaches up out of nature to God. But he 
starts with something given. He has an inheritance of 
which he has to make the most he can. That inheritance 
is his priceless possession, to be handed on unimpaired to 
future generations. 

In view of what the white race has actually accomplished 
in history it is evident that certain qualities that make 
for human progress are present in that race. The lack of 
historical achievement up to the present among the black 
peoples suggests that while they may possess other desirable 
qualities, those which have made white civilization possible 
may not be distributed among them in the same degree. 
We cannot be certain that this is so, but it is possible, or, 
as many would say, probable. 

If it be true, the recombination of hereditary characters 
resulting from racial fusion between the white and black 
races might involve the loss to mankind of qualities which 
have largely contributed to human progress. The risk is 
far too great to be run. Even if the marked difference 
in historical achievement did not exist, the extreme un- 
certainty regarding the result of amalgamation between 
widely different types would make the conservation of racial 
integrity appear in the present state of our knowledge to 
be the safer and wiser course. 

Apart from the possibility of racial deterioration through 
fusion, if two races differ, as they may be supposed to do, 
in their innate qualities, the intermixture of blood will 
lead gradually to the growth of a community whose habits 
and ways will be different from that of either of the original 
communities. Both of these, or one of them, may be 
strongly averse to such changes taking place. When this 
is so, a people would seem to have the same justification for 
taking measures to protect its life and institutions from 
subtle transformation from within as for defending them 
against attack by an external foe. 

In a recent article in an American journal the writer 


contends that far-reaching changes are taking place in 
American civilization. ‘We have still the same form of 
government and in general the same institutions that we 
possessed fifty years ago. But under the surface we 
perceive astounding changes in its spirit.’ He attributes 
these to the influx of Mediterranean peoples, of Slavs, 
of Armenians and of Jews, who do not have the Anglo- 
Saxon’s innate respect for law and love of personal freedom 
and independence. If things go on as they are, the 
original American stock seems to him doomed to extinc- 
tion, and he maintains that ‘if our race is worth saving, it 
is worth saving at all costs. . . . Let no one dissemble the 
truth that it is a fight, a grim battle for survival, that he 
is face to face with today .’ 1 

Granting that a community is justified in seeking to 
maintain the integrity of its life and its racial purity, what 
measures are necessary to achieve this end ? Can social 
sentiment and habit be relied on to secure it ? Is it 
possible to attain the desired object by a voluntary segrega- 
tion approved and maintained by both sides ? The question 
is one of the greatest difficulty and complexity, and no 
dogmatic answer can be given. 

Where there is a difference in religion, religious loyalty 
may suffice to keep communities distinct ; in India 
Hindus and Mohammedans retain their separateness. In 
Ceylon Tamils and Singhalese live side by side and inter- 
marriage between the two communities seldom takes place. 
In Switzerland the German-speaking and French-speaking 
communities preserve their distinctness though they belong 
to the same nation. The Jews have for centuries main- 
tained their identity while living in the midst of other 
peoples ; religion has no doubt been a powerful factor in 
bringing this about, but a sense of racial community seems 
also to be involved, since the separateness is maintained 
even when religious fervour dies down. But where, as in 
the United States, the Negroes have no civilization and 
religion distinct from that of the whites it is held that 

1 John T. Rowland in The Outlook , March 19th, 1924, pp. 478-80. 



if social equality is allowed intermixture will inevitably 
result. The 4 poor white ’ man will be tempted to marry 
the well-to-do coloured girl, and the 4 poor white ’ girl to 
marry the successful coloured man, and racial fusion will 
thus gradually take place. Others who have given close 
study to the subject hold that if the Negroes are allowed 
to develop their life on a basis of racial self-respect, 
it is possible for the two races to live side by side 
and remain socially separate and distinct. The Negroes, 
we are told, 4 are less and less inclined to sink their 
destiny in that of another race.’ Occasional instances 
of intermarriage may occur, but such individual cases 
no more constitute racial fusion 4 than the occasional 
union of two individuals of different nationalities would 
constitute the intermarriage of the nations.’ Such unions 
can never be wholly prevented, 4 but the impression that 
the development of the Negro race, its enlarging efficiency 
and intelligence, will in itself add to the frequency of 
intermarriage, or will itself increase the impulses of racial 
fusion, is, so far as one can now determine, totally 
unfounded .’ 1 

In any discussion of racial fusion the fact cannot be 
overlooked that in the United States and in other places 
where white peoples and other races are in contact the 
growth of a mixed population is due almost entirely to lack 
of restraint on the part of white men. The demand for 
the maintenance of racial purity is sincere only when the 
violation of the principle by white men is visited with as 
severe condemnation as the violation by black, and when 
the protection insisted on for white women is accorded also 
to the women of the other race. In South Africa white 
women are protected by the law but not black women. 
In those States in America in which inter-racial marriage 
is prohibited by law, it is difficult, if not impossible, 
for a Negro woman to bring an action against a white 
man for seduction. A policy directed to the mainten- 
ance of racial purity may be justified, but not the 
1 E. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy , pp. 74-6. 


perpetration of injustice in the measures by which effect 
is given to it. 

We have been considering thus far the erection of 
barriers, geographical or social, to prevent that close 
intermingling of races which may be expected to lead in 
the end to racial fusion. Where such barriers exist and are 
maintained there will still be contacts across them, and 
these may result in occasional inter-racial marriages. Such 
marriages in limited numbers can have no appreciable 
effect on the racial composition of either people. In this 
as in other relations between different races numbers are 
of vital importance. 

The reasons which lead a community to maintain its 
racial integrity naturally incline it to frown upon any 
infringement of the principle, and individual instances of 
inter-racial marriage are likely to meet with social dis- 
approval. But the judgments of society are not always 
right. May those who seek to free themselves from social 
prejudices take a different view ? 

As a general rule, the chances seem to be against inter- 
racial marriages proving happy and successful. A certain 
community of outlook is in most cases essential if marriage 
is to turn out well. If the early associations and attach- 
ments of the two partners, their tastes and standards 
unconsciously absorbed from the social environment in 
which each was brought up, their code of conduct 
and their religious ideas are widely divergent, instinctive 
sympathy is made more difficult and the possibilities of 
misunderstanding are greatly increased. It is not easy 
after one has grown up to become habituated to a wholly 
different social environment. The tug of early affections 
and memories may prove too strong. Homesickness may 
struggle fiercely in the heart with love for husband or 
wife. A friend who has had the opportunity of observing 
the results of a number of mixed marriages in the Near East 
told me that, in his experience, even when the marriage 
was successful so far as the two partners themselves were 
concerned, each as a rule found it difficult to like or get 



on with the other’s relations. The greater the differences 
in civilization, tradition and custom between two peoples, 
the greater the hindrances to happy and successful marriage 
between individuals belonging to them. 

Moreover those who marry do not thereby cut them- 
selves off from the world. However happy the home, 
neighbours have the power to mar its happiness. Where 
there is a social prejudice against mixed marriages, those 
who flout that prejudice may expect to incur social penalties. 
The comradeship of married life is seriously restricted if 
the social circle in which one partner naturally moves is 
not freely open to the other. Aloofness and slights may, 
especially to sensitive natures, cause unending misery, and 
by souring the temper destroy the happiness of the 

Again, the children have to be considered. Their lot 
may be harsh and difficult. Having a part in two widely 
different worlds they may find themselves unable to plant 
their feet firmly in either. Each may refuse to admit 
them unreservedly to its fellowship and privileges. These 
consequences do not always follow, but as a general rule the 
trials and hardships of life are greater for those of mixed 
parentage than for those who belong to a homogeneous 

These, it will be admitted, are powerful reasons for 
regarding intermarriage as in general undesirable and for 
dissuading those who would thoughtlessly and rashly enter 
upon it. But if, with their eyes open to the consequences, 
individuals decide to make the adventure, there seems to 
be no reason why they should not exercise their choice. 
We saw in a previous chapter that the basal constitution 
of the human mind is the same in all races. Race does 
not in itself constitute an insuperable barrier to the most 
intimate mutual understanding. Marriage between those 
who belong to different races but are in mind and tempera- 
ment suited to one another may prove to be far happier 
than many ill-assorted unions between members of the 
same race. Liberty and originality have a high social value, 


and experiments and adventures may prove advantageous 
in this field as in others. Only in this way can the 
actual results of inter-racial crossing become known. Such 
marriages may also contribute something to that deeper 
mutual understanding between different races which is 
indispensable if the peoples of the world are to live 
together in harmony. 



O RIENTAL visitors to the West are generally speaking 
subject to no serious social disabilities. They may 
travel freely. Public places are open to them. They may take 
such part in the life of the country in which they reside as 
their knowledge of its language, customs and habits enables 
them to do. Lack of familiarity with these may limit their 
opportunities of social intercourse, as it does in the case of 
other foreigners. Like other foreigners they may often 
be lonely. In some quarters they may encounter pre- 
judice, but this will generally be due to their failure through 
ignorance to conform to the ways, standards and conven- 
tions of the society in which they find themselves. Those 
who are able to appreciate and enter into the life around 
them will not find social barriers erected against them on 
the ground of race. 

Fear of the possibility of inter-racial marriage does, 
indeed, stand in the way of Orientals being admitted to 
British homes as they would otherwise be. An English 
official in India, who had spent his life in unremitting service 
of the people and was sincerely attached to them, told me 
that he was about to retire, and regretted that he would 
not be able to invite Indians to his house in England, as 
he would otherwise wish to do, because he had growing 
daughters and could not run the risk of marriage with an 
Indian. The drawbacks to inter-racial marriage, as set 
forth in the last chapter, are so patent that if parents were 
to draw the attention of their children to them, the ex- 
planation would probably be sufficient in most cases to 
inhibit the first beginnings of tender emotions and make 
the risk of an unfortunate marriage almost negligible. 



But whatever precautions may be desirable where marriage 
is a possibility some oriental visitors are already married 
and even have their wives with them in this country ; and 
there are some British homes without daughters of a 
marriageable age, and these at least are free to offer their 
hospitality without incurring any risk. 

In France and the French colonies race is practically no 
bar to social intercourse. Asiatics and Africans whose 
education permits them to do so mix freely in French 
society. As a French writer says, 4 Questions of the colour 
of a man’s skin or of his race are not for us of first-rate 
importance.’ 1 An English writer in a recent article gives 
the following description of conditions in Morocco. In 
the organization of the army the French ‘ have instituted 
mixed regiments in which French and Moorish soldiers 
serve without colour distinction and without discrimina- 
tion of treatment. When out on expeditions they fight, 
feed, sleep together. They learn each other’s language 
sufficiently well to converse at ease, for they are young 
recruits when drafted into these mixed regiments. They 
become fast friends. They share their duties and their 
amusements with no feeling of aloofness from religion or 
race. The colour line does not exist. The French mili- 
tary authorities are highly satisfied with this arrangement. 
Their generals in Morocco state that its success is indis- 
putable. The presence of Frenchmen gives a certain tone 
to the mixed native regiments which they would otherwise 
lack, and the native soldier appreciates, if he gives it a 
serious thought at all, the fact that he is receiving equality 
of treatment. The attitude is natural, for all idea of 
differentiation on account of religion, race or colour is 
absent on both sides.’ It is the same with the civil govern- 
ment. ‘ Everywhere it is collaboration between the Pro- 
tectors and the Protected, a collaboration the full benefit 
of which is obtained by the entire absence of racial feeling, 
for between the French and the Moroccan people the 
colour line does not exist. It never has existed, and while 
1 The Round Table , December 1922, p. 42. 



it appears to the French as totally unnecessary and irrational, 
it has never struck the native even as a remote possibility, 
nor would he support it in silence. The Moor is amenable 
to government, but he would revolt at any sign of humilia- 
tion.’ 1 Conditions in Morocco are no doubt exceptional, 
but the general attitude suggested by these quotations is 
characteristic of the French in their relations with the 
inhabitants of all their colonies. 

Very different are the relations of the British in India 
with the people of that country. There the two races, 
speaking generally, remain socially apart. Individual friend- 
ships between the two races are not uncommon ; official 
functions are attended by both races ; and in recent years 
clubs have been started in the larger cities open to both 
Indians and Europeans. Yet it remains true that social 
intercourse between the races, except where business or 
official duties require it, is the exception rather than the 

The social customs of India no less than exclusiveness 
on the British side stand in the way. The rules of caste 
do not permit the partaking of a common meal with those 
who are outside the caste. Whereas the European looks 
on a meal as essentially a social function, the Indian view 
as expressed by Mr Gandhi, is that ‘ the idea that inter- 
dining and intermarrying is necessary for national growth 
is a superstition borrowed from the West,’ and that ‘ inter- 
marriage and interdining are not necessary factors in friend- 
ship and unity though they are often emblems thereof .’ 2 
The seclusion of Indian women makes it difficult for British 
women and impossible for British men to meet them. 
The British, on the other hand, with the exception of 
missionaries and a few others, associate only with their own 
countrymen whose tastes and interests are similar to their 

From one point of view the social separateness is only 
what might be expected. It is natural that those whose 

1 The Round Table , March 1924, pp. 300-1, 307. 

2 Mahatma Gandhi, Freedom's Battle , pp. 137, 139. 


traditions, customs and interests are the same should seek 
social satisfaction in one another’s company, and that 
British officials burdened with work in a climate which they 
find enervating, should seek relaxation, when the day’s 
work is done, in their national games in familiar surroundings 
where they can feel at home. The social separateness does 
not differ from that which may be found between different 
social groups in England or between the different religious 
communities or different castes in India. 

But in the relations which exist between the two 
races their social aloofness has most unfortunate conse- 
quences. In many subtle and intimate ways it affects 
political relations. Political power has up to the present 
been in the hands of one race. The only way in which 
Indians have been able to obtain a share in the control of 
the affairs of their own country has been by participating 
in a system of government shaped and dominated by the 
ideas and habits of the ruling race. As they pressed 
forward into the region in which political power and 
influence were to be had they found themselves to a large 
extent shut off by the social exclusiveness of the ruling 
race from the deeper intimacies of its society. In the 
world of government and administration they could not 
feel themselves entirely at home. Exclusion from the 
social life of the ruling race left them ignorant of its habits 
and ways, and this handicap, though not easy to define, was 
keenly felt. The sting of social exclusiveness lay in the 
fact that the society in which full membership was denied 
was the society which held all the reins of power. 

The position of racial domination which the British 
enjoy in India has also not been without its effect on 
the attitude and behaviour of the European community 
generally. In coarser natures this unhappily expresses 
itself in offensive and bullying manners. The harm done 
by a minority among the European community has been 
incalculable. An educated Indian can never be certain 
that he will not in travelling or in public places meet 
with insulting behaviour from some European, and such 



incidents rankle in the memory and provoke undying resent- 
ment. But apart from such conduct, which every decent 
Englishman condemns, the environment in India exercises 
a subtle influence which it is very difficult for Europeans 
to escape. The fact that for considerably more than a 
century a handful of representatives of his race have 
controlled the destinies of the millions of India cannot fail 
to make its impress, conscious or unconscious, on the mind 
of the Englishman who goes to that country. At every 
turn in his daily experience he finds (or has found up till 
the recent reforms) that the decisions that are taken in 
any matter of importance are the decisions of his country- 
men. Whether he likes it or not he finds himself a member 
of a ruling caste, and his whole outlook and attitude become 
shaped by that fact. Strive as he may to be courteous and 
considerate, to understand the standpoint of the Indian 
and to be sympathetic in his attitude, he cannot escape 
the fact that he belongs to those whose function it is 
to decide, to command. It is very difficult in the Indian 
atmosphere for an Englishman not to acquire an instinctive 
sense of belonging to a superior race which, notwithstanding 
his conscious efforts to restrain its expression, is quickly 
detected by Indians and becomes a hindrance to those 
relations of friendship and intimate confidence which can 
exist only on a basis of equal mutual respect. 

The most serious effect, perhaps, of the social aloofness 
of the British in India is that it makes impossible on a 
sufficiently extended scale that intimacy of friendship and 
mutual knowledge which would enable the two races to 
understand one another and arrive at a harmonious adjust- 
ment of their relations. It is possible that the social 
separateness of the races is what makes the political problem 
so difficult, if not impossible, of solution. 

In Jamaica, where the white population numbers not 
quite 15,000, the Negroes 700,000 and the Mulatto 
population 160,000, there is practically no colour bar. 
‘ According to their professional position,’ it is stated by a 
former Governor of the island, Negroes and those of mixed 


race ‘ associate with the white residents on precisely the 
same terms as persons of pure European extraction.’ 1 In 
British West Africa, where some Africans have had a 
western education, there is, Sir Frederick Lugard says, ‘no 
colour bar.’ The educated Native ‘ engages in trade, in 
professional practice, and in recreations on equal terms 
with Europeans, and there are many highly respected and 
influential Native gentlemen who have availed themselves 
to the full of these facilities. Africans are appointed to 
such posts in the administration as they are qualified by 
education and character to fill.’ 2 But while officially there 
is no colour bar and Africans are in the West African 
colonies invited to official functions, social intercourse 
between the races is practically limited to these, and the 
racial feeling which is so pronounced in other parts of 
the world where the two races are brought into contact 
with one another is not without its influence on the 
attitude of the white community. 

Where African tribes are still in the primitive stages of 
development, the question of social equality has no meaning. 
Social intercourse on equal terms between those whose 
conditions of life are separated by centuries is an impossi- 
bility. Attempts to ignore these differences must do more 
harm than good. But here too contact with western 
civilization and the progress of education will bring about 
rapid changes and the social attitude must change with 

The question of social equality becomes most acute 
when two widely different races inhabit the same geo- 
graphical area, as in the United States and South Africa. 

In both these countries measures are taken to keep the 
two races socially as far apart as possible. In America the 
law in many States requires that on the railway and even 
in street cars separate accommodation should be provided 
for each race. In most parts of the South a coloured 
person is not allowed to enter a public refreshment-room 

1 Sydney Olivier, White Capital and Coloured Labour, p. 34. 

2 Sir F. D. Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, p. 86. 



used by whites except as a servant. The two races are 
educated in separate schools and colleges. They worship 
in different churches. In respect of criminal justice there 
is marked inequality between the races. In the Northern 
States the differentiation is not so marked, but even there 
Negroes would not be admitted to hotels. The large 
migration of Negroes into Northern States in the past 
few years has led in some places to friction between the 
races as acute as in the South. In industrial relations the 
American Federation of Labour has from the beginning 
‘ declared a uniform policy of non-racial discrimination, 
but this policy has not been carried out in practice by all 
its constituent or affiliated bodies. At several of its 
conventions resolutions have been passed embodying the 
official sentiment of the federation, but no means has yet 
been discovered to effect a uniform policy of fair dealing 
throughout all its affiliated bodies. Aside from those 
unions in which the membership privilege for Negroes is 
modified, eight of the no national or international unions 
affiliated with the American Federation of Labour explicitly 
bar the Negro by provisions in their constitutions.’ 1 

In South Africa there are similar discriminations to 
those which exist in the Southern States of America. 
There are separate counters for Natives in post-offices and 
booking-offices, separate tramcars, separate and usually 
inferior accommodation on railways, no admission to hotels 
nor in most cases to railway restaurants, and other similar 
disabilities. As in the United States, most white men in 
South Africa avoid titles of courtesy in conversation with 
black people and would never employ the form Mr or 
Mrs in addressing them. The Pass Laws are a continual 
source of irritation to the Natives and in the hands 
of unsympathetic officials may be made an opportunity 
of humiliating and inconveniencing them. Economically 
Natives are debarred for the most part from entering 
skilled trades. In November 1923 a decision of far-reaching 

1 The Negro in Chicago, by the Chicago Commission on Race Relations, 
p. 627. 

1 66 


importance was given by the Supreme Court of the 
Transvaal. It declared that the section of the mining 
regulations which restricted attendance on machinery to 
Europeans, generally known as the Colour Bar, was ultra 
vires, since the enabling act made no discrimination 
between white and black. 

The reason given for the rigorous social segregation 
both in the United States and in South Africa is the 
necessity of protecting the white man’s civilization, institu- 
tions and purity of race. In South Africa where the white 
population is greatly outnumbered by the black the fear 
of the vast, incalculable, uncontrollable forces of human 
life by which the white man’s civilization is surrounded 
is always present to his mind. Many of the tribes have 
only recently been subdued ; they still are uncivilized ; 
the fighting instinct in them is strong. The memory still 
remains, especially among the Boers who have been the 
pioneers of western civilization, of savage attacks to be 
warded off by themselves and their neighbours with appal- 
ling consequences to their wives and daughters if the 
resistance failed. Such memories and the still present 
danger from superior numbers must be borne in mind if 
the attitude of the white population is to be understood. 
Whatever judgment may be passed on injustice and 
repressive measures, sympathy must not be withheld from 
white communities whose growth cannot, like that of more 
fortunate kindred peoples in most western lands, be free 
and unhampered but must take place inextricably inter- 
twined with the life of another race, not only different but 
immeasurably less advanced than their own. 

If the situation is hard and burdensome for the whites 
it is cruel and oppressive for the African race. Only their 
natural sunniness of disposition and power to live in the 
present and forget the memory of wrongs makes it possible 
for them to endure it. The enumeration of the disabilities 
to which they are subject is sufficient to enable any one 
with a little imagination to realize how intolerable a burden 
life must often seem to those who have to contend with 


1 67 

such handicaps and disadvantages, especially when by 
their efforts they have raised themselves to a point at 
which they are able to realize from how much they are 
shut off by the colour of their skin. The following descrip- 
tion of her experience by a coloured woman in the United 
States may help those born in more fortunate circumstances 
to understand how black folk sometimes feel : 

‘ The curious thing about white people is that they 
expect us to judge them by their statute books and not 
by their actions. But we coloured people have learned 
better, so much so that when we prepare for a journey, 
when we enter on a new undertaking, when we decide on 
where to go to school, if we want to shop, to move, to go 
to the theatre, to eat (outside of our own houses), we think 
quite consciously, “ If we can pull it through without 
some white person interfering.” . . . 

‘ I am a coloured woman, neither white nor black, 
neither pretty nor ugly, neither specially graceful nor at 
all deformed. I am fairly well educated, of fair manners 
and deportment. In brief, the average American done 
over in brown. In the morning I go to work by means of 
the subway, which is crowded. Presently somebody gets 
up. The man standing in front of the vacant place looks 
around meaning to point it out to a woman. I am the 
nearest one. “ But oh,” says his glance, “ you’re coloured. 
I’m not expected to give it to you.” And down he plumps. 
According to my reflexes that morning I think to myself 
“ hypocrite ” or “ pig.” And make a conscious effort to 
shake off the unpleasantness of it, for I don’t want my day 

‘ At noon I go for lunch. But I always go to the same 
place because I am not sure of my reception in other 
places. If I go to another place I must fight it through. 
But usually I am hungry, I want food, not a law-suit. 
And, too, how long am I to wait before I am sure of the 
slight ? Shall I march up to the proprietor and say, “ Do 
you serve coloured people ? ” or shall I sit and drum on 
the table for fifteen or twenty minutes, feel my anger 


rising, prepare to explode only to have the attendant come 
at that moment and nonchalantly arrange the table ? I 
eat but I go out still not knowing whether the delay was 
intentional or not. . . . 

‘ I think the thing that irks us most is the teasing 
uncertainty of it all. Did the man at the box-office give 
us the seat behind the post on purpose ? Is the shop-girl 
impudent or merely nervous ? Had the position really 
been filled before we applied for it ? ’ 1 

Is there any way out of this desperate situation as it 
must often seem to both whites and blacks ? We may 
note the lines on which attempts are being made in the 
United States to bring about an improvement. The 
Inter-racial Movement in the Southern States, to which 
fuller reference will be made in a later chapter, includes in 
its programme the securing of justice before the law, the 
prevention of lynching, the obtaining of adequate edu- 
cational facilities, sanitary housing, good living conditions 
and suitable opportunities of recreation for the Negro 
population, the establishment of economic justice and the 
provision of equal travelling facilities. The ideal which 
most of those who are most earnestly seeking a solution 
have set before themselves is that of equal opportunity for 
both white and black to develop their own highest and 
best life independently, while they remain socially apart. 
While in the past twenty years great progress has been 
made in such matters as the extension of Negro education 
there does not appear to be the slightest indication of any 
breaking down of the barriers in regard to social intercourse. 

‘ It is sometimes assumed from quite different stand- 
points,’ says Mr Edgar Gardner Murphy, one of the most 
sympathetic students of the relations of white and black, 
‘ that the full development of the Negro race, its highest 
life, and its enjoyment of the normal “ rights ” of a 
democracy, must involve the breaking-up of its racial 
distinctness and the abandonment of its social segregation. 
That this is not the case is evident from the relations of 
1 The World. To-morrow , March 1922, p. 76. 


the Gentile and the Jew. The Jew does not “ degrade ” 
the Gentile or destroy any “ right ” to which the Gentile 
is entitled when he carefully guards the conditions of 
intermarriage and excludes the Gentile from his table. 
Nor is the Jew conscious of political or social injury should 
the Gentile accept from his own side, also, the canons of 
a voluntary segregation. The parallel is not literal nor 
complete ; yet it is sufficiently suggestive to indicate that 
there is much difference between the instinctive segrega- 
tion of various groups and a barrier of political and social 
degradation.’ 1 The ideal of equal justice and equal 
political rights for those qualified to exercise them, com- 
bined with social separateness, finds acceptance also with 
many Negroes, as providing the best working arrangement 
in existing circumstances. It was enunciated by Booker 
Washington in his famous Atlanta speech — ‘ In all things 
purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and 
yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual pro- 
gress.’ This declaration has been severely criticized by 
Negro leaders of a different school, but Negroes are tending 
more and more to develop their own business, professional 
and social organizations and to avoid the risk of slights and 
insult by keeping within the circle of their own racial life. 
They repudiate the idea that they have any wish to be 
with white people just for the sake of mixing with 
them. 2 

Sir Frederick Lugard has summarized this view of 
the relations between the races in words which President 
Harding quoted in a speech at Birmingham, Alabama in 
1921, as seeming to him to indicate the true way out : 
‘ Here, then, is the true conception of the inter-relation 
of colour : complete uniformity in ideals, absolute equality 
in the paths of knowledge and culture, equal opportunity 
for those who strive, equal admiration for those who 
achieve ; in matters social and racial a separate path, each 
pursuing his own inherited traditions, preserving his own 

1 E. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. 77, footnote. 

2 The Negro Year-book, 192 1-2, p. 52. 


race purity and race pride ; equality in things spiritual, 
agreed divergence in the physical and material.’ 1 

The solution to which the best minds thus seem to 
be turning is racial and social segregation on the basis 
of equality of opportunity. Is this a desirable solution 
and is it practicable ? 

Segregation may not, indeed cannot, be the ultimate 
ideal. But at a particular stage in the development of the 
human race it may be the arrangement which on the whole 
makes most for harmony and peaceful progress. If two 
individuals cannot get on with one another, it is better 
that they should not attempt to live under the same roof. 
By living separately they reduce the occasions of friction 
and avoid getting on each other’s nerves. We have a 
classic example of this means of eliminating strife in Abram’s 
dealing with Lot. ‘ And Abram said unto Lot, Let there 
be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between 
my herdmen and thy herdmen, for we be brethren. Is 
not the whole land before thee ? Separate thyself, I pray 
thee, from me : if thou wilt take the left hand, then I 
will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right hand, 
then I will go to the left.’ 2 It must be noted, however, 
that in this instance the wealthier and stronger party 
yielded the choice of opportunity to the weaker, a point 
that is not without importance, as we shall see, in the 
problem we are considering. 

There is much to be said for the view that where two 
peoples differ widely from one another, and each or one 
of them desires to preserve its integrity and distinctive 
character, it is best that they should develop their 
respective civilizations independently of one another, 
each making its special and unique contribution to 
the common life of mankind. Where peoples inhabit 
separate geographical areas this is possible, and the most 
convincing argument for the control of immigration is 
the desirability of allowing each people to develop its own 

1 Sir F. D. Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa , p. 87. 

2 Genesis xiii. 8, 9. 



characteristic type of life free from the admixture of alien 

But in America and South Africa the two races are 
there. History cannot be unwritten ; the consequences 
of the past cannot be effaced. The question is how far 
it is practicable in these circumstances for the two races 
to develop independently of one another. Geographical 
segregation in any thorough-going form is not feasible. 
Economically the life of the two communities is too closely 
intertwined. In South Africa, where the tribal system 
still survives, the desirability of demarcating lands for white 
and for Native occupation respectively is recognized, and 
the Native Lands Act of 1913 aimed at such territorial 
separation. Granted that the division was fairly made 
such a measure would have the advantage of giving security 
to both communities against encroachment by the other, 
and in particular would prevent the Natives, who are the 
weaker party, from having their lands filched from them 
by unscrupulous Europeans. But even at its best, such 
territorial separation can provide only a partial solution of 
the problem. The European community in South Africa 
is economically dependent on the Natives. It has to rely 
on them as servants, as farm labourers and as workers in 
the mines. To this extent it is impossible to segregate the 
races. The whites do not want to have any social inter- 
course with the Natives, but economically it is impossible 
to dispense with them. 

The question, therefore, is how far it is possible in 
practice for two communities, living side by side, economic- 
ally dependent on one another, and in the United States 
participating in a common political life, to remain racially 
and socially distinct. The experiment will and must be 
tried, since no other solution is at present within sight. 
But its success will depend on how far it conforms to the 
dictates of justice, and it is just at this point that the 
difficulties are most formidable. One of the two races has 
an almost complete monopoly of power, and to act justly 
in such circumstances demands a degree of virtue to which 


average human nature has hardly attained. The world 
has recognized in regard to individuals that it is not right 
or possible for a man to be judge in his own cause. It is 
not any easier for a community enjoying exclusive power to 
act justly where its own interests are involved. 

Social separation is in itself a policy which both races 
can accept. It is possible on a basis of complete mutual 
respect, and is sincerely advocated in this sense by many 
of those who favour it. But in practice it is apt to mean 
not merely separation but discrimination. Can the Negro 
be blamed if in the light of many experiences the policy 
of social separation appears to him to be interpreted by 
the white community to mean, ‘ We take the best and 
leave you the worst ’ ? The arrangement between Abram 
and Lot would not have been as amicable as it proved if 
it had been made on this principle. 

In South Africa where, under the Native Lands Act of 
1913, land has been demarcated between whites and 
Natives, the latter, being without political power, have 
had to be content with land insufficient in quantity 
and often poor in quality. While under the same Act 
they have found themselves ejected from land assigned for 
European occupancy, white men have not been compelled 
to remove from land allocated to Natives. Of the taxes 
paid by Natives a proportionate return does not come 
back to them in the provision of educational facilities and 
similar advantages. In the United States the weaker race 
has in the same way often to be content with inferior 
facilities. Negroes have no objection to living with their 
own people ; but it often happens that it is not possible 
to buy a house in a decent neighbourhood. Side-walks 
and other public conveniences in American cities often stop 
where the Negro quarter begins, though municipal taxation 
is the same for both races. 

As its programme indicates the Inter-racial Movement 
in America is actively taking up such questions. In its 
plan of forming inter-racial groups for the discussion of 
these matters, moreover, it has taken a firm hold of the 



vital principle that a just view can only be arrived at when 
the parties consult together. Judgments will always be 
partial and onesided so long as the point of view of one 
side is unrepresented. Only by intercourse with the other 
race can the white man come to know and understand what 
are the real hardships and disabilities from which it suffers. 
The toad beneath the harrow knows 
Exactly where each tooth-point goes. 

. The butterfly beside the road 

Preaches contentment to that toad. 

There is, however, a wider issue involved in the attempt 
to establish the relations between the white and black races 
on a basis of equality of opportunity combined with social 
separateness — an issue which concerns not merely the 
African communities in the United States and South Africa 
but the relations between the African race as a whole and 
western civilization. Knowledge in its higher ranges is to 
be found in the institutions of the western peoples ; the 
African people have not among themselves the means of 
acquiring it. If they are to obtain it in order to develop 
an independent life they must obtain it through intercourse 
with white people. It is not merely a question of estab- 
lishing a certain number of African higher institutions of 
learning ; it is a question of access to that rich and brilliant 
world of culture created by centuries of intellectual effort 
which constitutes western civilization and to the stores of 
scientific knowledge and practical experience which have 
been accumulated within it. In no other way except 
through its potential leaders drinking deeply at this fount 
of knowledge can the African race for generations have a 
chance of developing a worthy life of its own. Unless this 
is recognized, all talk of segregation on a basis of equal 
opportunity is unreal and insincere, and the African race 
as a race is condemned to a position of permanent 

The recognition of this fact in no way implies that 
the African is to become a mere copy of the West. His 
individuality is too marked, even where he has been cut 


off as in America from his roots in his ancestral soil, for 
him to be a feeble imitation of another race. No one who 
has enjoyed intimate relations with Africans can doubt that 
they have a distinctive contribution of their own to make 
to the life of the world. All those efforts, therefore, which 
are being made by wise administrators and educators in 
Africa to conserve indigenous institutions are to be wel- 
comed as an indispensable contribution to the healthy 
evolution of the African race. No more fatal mistake could 
be made than to suppose that the West alone has something 
to give and the African has nothing to do but to receive. 
The African is not clay to be cast into western moulds 
but a living type which must develop in accordance with 
its own laws and express its native genius. Yet cultures 
in the past have developed largely under the stimulus of 
contact with other cultures. In the world as it is today 
the African cannot go far unless he finds leaders who have 
drawn on the experience and knowledge of the West. 
The growth of a distinctive African civilization and the 
assimilation of western knowledge are not incompatible 
things ; they are indispensable the one to the other. What- 
ever form racial differentiation and social separation may 
take they must at least provide access for Africans who 
are qualified to take advantage of the opportunity to the 
learning and culture of the West, or an injustice will be 
done, as great as it is possible for one race to inflict on 
another ; for it will mean the denial to the African race of 
the opportunity to grow. 

The question of social intercourse between different 
races which we have been considering in this chapter is 
manifestly a world question. The different parts of the 
world have become so interdependent and inter-related 
that no attitude or policy can be without its effect on 
attitudes and policies adopted elsewhere. It therefore 
becomes a serious question whether the social traditions, 
habits and outlook which are formed where race contacts 
are most difficult and racial tension most acute will be 
allowed insensibly to colour and determine the relations 


l 75 

between the white and the non-white peoples ; or whether 
the freer, more human relations which exist where peoples are 
more happily situated will point the way to a larger under- 
standing and co-operation between the races of the world. 

A policy of divergent and separate development, con- 
sented to by both sides, offers certain advantages and may 
in existing circumstances be the best, or the only, means of 
preventing friction and conflict. But social segregation 
while it solves some difficulties creates others. The greater 
the separateness, the fewer must be the opportunities 
of mutual understanding. Everywhere in the economic 
sphere, and in the United States in the political sphere 
also, separation is impossible. At innumerable points the 
races must inevitably touch one another. If the more 
intimate life of each is a sealed book to the other there is 
nothing to counteract the growth of suspicion, misappre- 
hension and mistrust. There is, and can be, no escape 
from the fact that the different races have to live in the 
same world. Whatever social arrangements may be neces- 
sary so far as the masses are concerned, it is indispensable 
that some means should be found by which individuals 
may surmount the barriers and enter into friendship with 
members of the other race. Only in this way can real 
understanding ever be brought about. This task of 
interpretation is one which it is incumbent on Christians 
especially to undertake. The Christian spirit, which is 
essentially missionary and inclusive, can never reconcile 
itself to any barriers which separate man from man. It 
must continually strive to pass beyond them in order to 
realize the fellowship which unites those who are the 
children of a common Father. The Christian, as we saw 
in an earlier chapter, is dedicated to the service of 
a purpose of righteousness and love which transcends all 
natural differences between men ; and every individual is 
for him a potential, if not an actual, comrade in the great 
adventure of establishing the Kingdom of God. 



TN the chapter on immigration we saw that closely 
^ bound up with the question of the admission of 
non-European races to territories inhabited by white 
populations was that of the political rights accorded to 
them when admitted. So strong on both sides is the 
feeling aroused by these related questions that unless some 
solution of them can be found, the tension may disrupt 
the British Empire, and gravely affect the relations both 
of the British Empire and of the United States with the 
peoples of Asia. 

We may begin with a general survey of the facts. To 
what extent and under what conditions are equal political 
rights accorded or denied to persons of non-European 
origin ? 

The French attitude on the subject was recently 
stated by the Prime Minister, M. Poincare, in these words : 
‘ France has always considered her colonies as an integral 
part of the indivisible Fatherland, and dares not distinguish 
between the various races which live under her flag. In 
several of her old possessions she has even given to the 
native population the prerogative of French nationality, 
notably in the case of the Antilles, and I need not tell you 
that in the eyes of the Government of the Republic there 
are not two categories or classes of citizens. We have too 
great a consciousness of human dignity to set up such an 
artificial and unjust distinction.’ 1 In the French colonies 
natives who have a good record and the necessary qualifica- 
tions can acquire French citizenship with all the privileges 
of Europeans. 

1 The Times , March ioth, 1923. 



In the United States we find a wholly different 
situation. The facts in regard to the exercise of the 
franchise by Negroes in America can be understood only 
in the light of what occurred after the conclusion of the 
Civil War. Those concerned in the late rebellion, that is 
to say the great majority of the white population of the 
South, were excluded by Act of Congress (until the passing 
of the Amnesty Act of 1872) from voting and taking part 
in the government, while the emancipated slaves, ignorant 
and without political experience or even political ideas, 
were enfranchised. The legislatures in some States were 
controlled by the Negro vote, while the Negro voters 
became in many instances the helpless prey of unscrupulous 
white politicians and adventurers of every description. 
Jobbery and corruption were rampant in a degree seldom 
known in a civilized country. Extravagant salaries were 
voted to legislators and officials ; embezzlement was wide- 
spread ; bonds were issued for the construction of railways 
and other public works and these were never executed, 
the money going into the pockets of contractors and those 
who arranged the deal. Taxation mounted beyond all 
bounds, since it was paid by the whites who were excluded 
from power and not by their former slaves by whose 
votes the government was conducted. The situation was 
intolerable, since the political forms corresponded in no 
degree to realities. In wealth, education and experience 
the white community was immeasurably the stronger, and 
it was not prepared to be ruled by its former slaves. It 
had but to make the necessary exertion to regain political 
power. The methods used, as they are apt to be in such 
cases, were violent, but it was inevitable that in a short time 
the stronger element should recover control. 

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed 
in 1870 enacted that ‘ the rights of citizens of the United 
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 
United States or by any State on account of race, colour 
or previous condition of servitude.’ Notwithstanding this, 
laws were passed by a number of the Southern States 



designed to restrict Negro suffrage, and while the require- 
ments of these laws professedly apply to white and black 
alike, it is in the power of officials to determine whether 
particular individuals have or have not complied with the 
provisions of the law. The result of these measures is 
that the great majority of Negroes of voting age in the 
South are not registered and qualified as voters. More- 
over, since the Democratic party is practically the only 
party in the South, its candidates are sure of election, and 
these are selected at party meetings restricted to whites. 
A party being constitutionally entitled to define its own 
constituency this is in practice an effective means of dis- 
franchising the Negroes. In the States in which the two 
party system has been developed the Negro vote is a real 
factor. There has, however, in recent years been a growing 
recognition on the part of the whites throughout the 
South that qualified Negroes ought not to be deprived 
of their political rights. The number of qualified Negro 
voters is increasing steadily, if slowly, and election officers 
are more disposed to allow them to qualify and vote on the 
same basis as whites. 

The problem of the franchise arises in the United 
States not only in connexion with the Negro population 
but also in regard to immigrants from Asia. By the 
Constitution ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United 
States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the 
State in which they reside.’ 1 It follows that the children 
of Asiatic parents residing in the United States are, if 
born in America, American citizens. In regard to the 
eligibility of Asiatics for naturalization and citizenship the 
state of the law has been ambiguous. In the first law of 
naturalization passed in 1790 it was provided that ‘ any 
alien being a free white person ’ might on fulfilling the 
necessary conditions become a citizen ; and the same 
words were retained in subsequent naturalization laws. 
By Act of Congress following on the Civil War and the 
emancipation of the slaves the naturalization laws were 
1 Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 



made to apply to ‘ aliens of African nativity and to 
persons of African descent.’ When Chinese immigration 
came to be regarded as a danger an Act was passed by Con- 
gress (1882) definitely excluding Chinese from citizenship. 
It provided that ‘ hereafter no State court or court of 
the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship.’ 
Apart from the specific exclusion of Chinese the naturaliza- 
tion of all other aliens was governed by the ambiguous 
words ‘ free white aliens.’ These were interpreted by 
some courts as being intended to be inclusive in the 
widest sense, and Japanese and East Indians as well as 
other races have been admitted to citizenship. In other 
cases applications were rejected. 1 The utmost confusion 
in regard to the state of the law prevailed. In 1923, 
however, test cases of Japanese and Indian nationality 
were brought before the Supreme Court, and by what may 
be regarded as a final ruling it was decided that Japanese 
and Indians are not included in the category of ‘ free 
white aliens.’ This does not affect the eligibility for 
citizenship of the children of such aliens, if they are born 
in the United States. But an attempt is being made in 
California to push the matter further and bring in legisla- 
tion to exclude from citizenship the children of those 
who are themselves ineligible. 

In Great Britain equality of political rights is possessed 
by all British subjects of whatever race, and Indians have 
represented British constituencies in the House of Commons 
and been admitted to the House of Lords. ‘ The tradi- 
tional British view,’ as Sir Charles Lucas says, ‘ is that in 
principle colour should be no bar to equality.’ 2 In 
New Zealand, where the Indian community numbers 
only six hundred, Indians enjoy the franchise equally with 
other British subjects. In both Great Britain and New 
Zealand Asiatics are numerically a negligible element in 
the total population. Where this is the case difficulties 

1 See Sidney L. Gulick, American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship, 
pp. 54-79, from which the above facts are taken. 

2 Sir Charles Lucas, The Partition and Colonization of Africa , p. 206. 


about the franchise do not arise. In Canada in eight out 
of the nine provinces Indians are subject to no political 
disability, while in British Columbia, in which alone there 
is an Indian community of appreciable size, they are denied 
it. In Australia the disabilities of Indians, who number 
about 2000, are not serious. They have not at present 
the Dominion franchise, nor in Queensland and Western 
Australia the full State franchise, but the passing of 
legislation to give them the vote is under discussion. 

In South Africa the conditions resemble those in the 
United States, with this notable difference that whereas 
in the latter the Negro population constitutes about one- 
tenth of the whole and is decreasing in numbers relatively 
to the white, in South Africa the Native population out- 
numbers the white by nearly four to one. Over against 
a white population of about a million and a half there are 
over five million Natives and about one hundred and sixty 
thousand Asiatics. 

In the Cape the franchise is based on the principle of 
racial equality. There is an educational test of a simple 
nature, and a voter must also have a property or wage- 
earning qualification. These tests do, in fact, exclude 
many Native voters. The number of Native voters is at 
present about 14,000 out of a total Native population of 
1,500,000, while of a coloured population (including 
Indians) of 435,000, nearly 27,000 are registered voters. 
In Natal, while the Natives and coloured people may 
legally acquire the vote on certain conditions, in practice 
they are almost entirely excluded. In the Transvaal and 
Orange Free State the franchise is explicitly restricted to 
whites, all adult white males who are British subjects 
having the right to vote. The Act of Union safeguards 
the Cape franchise by making any alteration of it dependent 
on a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament 
sitting together, but it provides that only persons of 
European descent shall sit in Parliament, and assigns to 
the Cape Province a proportionate representation in the 
Assembly on the basis of its European voters only, the 



coloured and Native voters being left out of the reckoning. 
The South Africa Act thus marked a decided set-back to 
the principle of racial equality in political matters. 

The franchise question is complicated in South Africa 
by the presence of an Indian community consisting mainly 
of labourers brought over under the indenture system and 
the traders who followed them. Most of the Indians in 
South Africa are concentrated in Natal, where they out- 
number the white population (140,000 as against 137,000), 
while the Native population exceeds a million. In the 
view of the white community it is impossible to grant the 
franchise to Indians since this would make the withholding 
of it from the natives of the country more difficult. On 
the other hand, behind the immigrant Indian community 
stand the millions of India intensely sensitive to any dis- 
abilities imposed on their compatriots and resentful of 
anything which seems to place on them the stigma of 

It is, however, in Kenya colony that the question of 
equal political rights for Indians has recently been raised 
in the most acute form. 

The Imperial Conference which met in 1921 passed 
the following resolution (the representatives of South 
Africa dissenting) : ‘ The Conference, while reaffirming 

the Resolution of the Imperial War Conference of 1918 
that each community of the British Commonwealth should 
enjoy complete control of the composition of its own 
population by means of restriction on immigration from 
any of the other communities, recognizes that there is an 
incongruity between the position of India as an equal 
member of the British Empire and the existence of dis- 
abilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled in some 
other parts of the Empire. The Conference accordingly 
is of the opinion that, in the interests of the solidarity of 
the British Commonwealth, it is desirable that the rights 
of such Indians to citizenship should be recognized.’ 

Indians feel that whatever difficulties there may be in 
the self-governing Dominions, in Kenya, which is adminis- 


tered by the Imperial Government, the principle of this 
resolution should immediately be applied. The population 
of Kenya, as has already been stated, consists of about two 
and a half million Natives, about 22,500 Indians, about 
10,000 Arabs and nearly 10,000 Europeans, many of whom 
are planters possessing large estates. The ultimate authority 
lies with the Governor, who is responsible to the Secretary 
of State for the Colonies. The Legislative Council is com- 
posed of official members, who must vote when required 
according to instructions and are in the majority, and of 
non-official members. A few years ago a constitution was 
granted which allowed the European community to elect 
its representatives on the council, and this was regarded as 
a first step towards responsible government. The Indians 
demand that they shall be admitted to the franchise on a 
common electoral roll, and an arrangement was come to 
between the Secretaries of State for India and for the 
Colonies by which a certain proportion of Indians were to 
be admitted as voters. The European community refused 
to accept this arrangement. The situation became so 
acute that the Governor of the colony and deputations 
representing the European and Indian communities in 
Kenya and India itself came to England in the summer of 
1923, and the British Cabinet gave their decision. They 
laid down that primarily Kenya is an African territory, 
and that Native interests must be paramount. They 
definitely repudiated the idea of the grant of responsible 
self-government within any period of time which need 
now be taken into consideration. Nor were they prepared 
to contemplate the possibility of substituting a non-official 
majority for the government official majority. In other 
words they made it clear that the colony would be 
administered under the direct authority of the Crown. 
They did not, however, withdraw the right of the European 
community to elect certain representatives to the council. 
They proposed that the Indian community should also be 
given the right to elect representatives of their own sepa- 
rately from the Europeans. Throughout the controversy 



Indians have contended that if there was to be election 
there should be a common electoral roll, Europeans and 
Indians voting in the same constituencies for the same 
candidates, who might be either Europeans or Indians. 
The Government have refused this, and decided that 
each community shall elect its own representatives separ- 
ately. This, with other features of the government 
decision, which do not immediately concern us here, has 
caused the most widespread and bitter disappointment 
in India, and evoked a storm of protest. It is regarded as 
a going back on the resolution of the Imperial Conference, 
and as a denial to Indians of equal status within the Empire. 

To complete the survey, we may glance at the other 
British colonies where there is a mixed population. In 
Jamaica, as we have seen, no colour bar exists. The en- 
franchised slaves were not given political power as in the 
United States, and consequently a situation was not created 
which led to violent reaction. The franchise was limited 
by a substantial property test. In 1866, following on an 
insurrection of the Negroes, the elective assembly was 
abolished and Crown Colony government established. 
Though the elective principle was reintroduced later, 
ultimate responsibility remained with the Governor as 
representing the Crown, and consequently neither race 
had reason to fear injustice at the hands of the other. In 
British Guiana there is no colour bar in regard to the 
franchise. In Fiji the political representation of Indians is 
at present under consideration. 

The facts which have been passed in review show how 
wide are the ramifications of the problem, and how many 
and what diverse peoples are in one way or another affected 
by it. Their traditions, their institutions, their honour 
and self-respect, their very existence, it may be, are involved. 
The work of generations may be needed before a solution of 
so deep and difficult a question can be found. The most 
we can hope to do here is to gain a clearer understanding 
of some of the essential elements in the problem. 

The franchise may be withheld on the ground that those 


to whom it is denied are not capable of exercising it. The 
consequences of giving political power to those who lack 
the capacity to make a right use of it cannot be other 
than disastrous. Realities when they are ignored invariably 
take their revenge. ‘ Ignorance cannot be protected 
against itself. Under the forms of free democratic pro- 
cedure, the politically weak cannot be stayed from 
delivering themselves, by one method or another, into 
the hands of the politically strong.’ 1 

The centuries of slow growth and progress which 
separate the more advanced from the more backward 
peoples of the world cannot be left out of account. It is 
impossible to wipe out history. Time is a real part of our 
world, and any arrangements, political or other, which fail 
to take account of it will inevitably be shipwrecked on the 
rock of obdurate fact. There is nothing derogatory to 
the dignity and self-respect of any people in recognizing and 
accepting facts, or in beginning the upward climb from 
where they are. Every man has his own problem, and 
his manhood asserts itself in facing his own problem and 
not another’s. 

American experience proves that the bestowal of political 
rights cannot confer the power to exercise them on those 
who do not possess the capacity. Constitutional forms 
are powerless to control living forces. The enfranchise- 
ment of the Negro population became a dead letter 
because those enfranchised were not capable of govern- 
ing. Those who possessed the capacity to govern were 
compelled by the instinct of self-preservation to seize 
the reins of government. By no other means could the 
fabric of social life be saved from complete collapse in 
which strong and weak would be destroyed together. By 
rough and rude methods power was restored to the hands 
of those who were alone capable of using it to create the 
conditions of an ordered social life. The mistake that 
was made in granting political rights to those unfitted to 
exercise them has had a blighting effect on the life of the 
1 E. G. Murphy, The Basts of Ascendancy, p. 130. 



South for a generation. The relations of the two races 
might have been happier and a larger measure of justice 
might have been achieved, had it not been for the abuses 
and fears of the Reconstruction period. 

Few will deny that the franchise is a responsibility as 
well as a right and that there may be those who by their 
immaturity and inexperience are not qualified to discharge 
that responsibility. But ignorance and incapacity are not 
the only grounds for withholding citizenship. Japan is a 
Power of the first rank, yet Japanese are not eligible for 
citizenship in the United States. India is the home of a 
great and ancient civilization, yet Indians are subject to 
political disabilities in some parts of the British Empire. 
The ground of the refusal in these cases is not in- 
capacity ; it is difference. Is this a reasonable ground for 
discrimination ? 

Representative institutions are the invention of the 
Anglo-Saxon peoples. They have not yet taken root widely 
outside the Anglo-Saxon world. The Anglo-Saxon peoples 
themselves do not find them easy to work ; they are less 
confident than they were of their ability to make a success 
of them under modern conditions. It has yet to be 
proved how far other peoples can work them at all. No 
question of superiority or inferiority is necessarily involved. 
We have seen in a former chapter that individuals, and 
presumably peoples, differ in their gifts and capacities. 
Capacity for political organization of a certain type is a gift 
of a special kind. It is not the only, nor even the highest, 
kind of human capacity. It is at least conceivable that 
peoples who in other respects out-distance the Anglo- 
Saxons do not possess this particular capacity in the same 

A German writer has recently undertaken, with an 
enormous wealth of learning, a study of British institutions 
with a view to discovering what Germany can learn 
from her victor in the late war. When he comes to deal 
with parliamentary institutions, while he recognizes that 
Germany needs to acquire as well as she can the ‘ political 


sense ’ of the British, he is emphatically of the opinion 
that the British political system cannot be transplanted to 
Germany. All the exhortation and preaching in the 
world will not make the German disposition different from 
what it is, and it is consequently certain that the English 
parliamentary system in the form in which it exists in 
England will not succeed on German soil. The char- 
acteristic German virtues find their natural expression in 
the civil service, which has won a deserved reputation 
for its sense of reality, honesty, industry, public spirit 
and idealism. No one will suppose that Dr Dibelius 
considers the English a superior race to the Germans, but 
he recognizes that Germans are constitutionally incapable 
of working successfully institutions which have been created 
and developed by peculiarly Anglo-Saxon qualities. 1 

The illustration is valuable because Germans and British 
possess a far larger common heritage than do the peoples 
of the East and the West. Their national life has been 
moulded by the same legacy of Greek and Roman culture 
and the same Christian tradition. The differences between 
western and eastern peoples are far greater. There need 
be no lurking assumption of superiority, no haunting sense 
of inferiority in recognizing frankly the fact of difference. 
It is the product of historical forces operating through 
long centuries ; we cannot change it. Turned to right 
uses it may become the means of greatly enriching the 
life of mankind. 

The motive which leads to the refusal of the franchise 
is the desire of western communities to conserve their own 
type of life. This is evident from the fact that where the 
alien element is too small to have any effect on the char- 
acter of the national life no difficulty arises. There is no 
danger of Indians settling in large numbers in Great 
Britain. The franchise is therefore granted without hesi- 
tation. So long as Chinese and Japanese in the United 
States were few in number they could become naturalized 
without difficulty ; when the number increased measures 
1 Wilhelm Dibelius, England , vol. ii. pp. 216-23. 



were promptly taken to exclude them from citizenship. 
Numbers make all the difference. They make this differ- 
ence because they constitute a menace to the type and 
character of the national life. Those who have inherited 
the same western tradition as themselves Anglo-Saxon 
communities feel that they can assimilate ; of others they 
are not so sure. It is the instinct of self-preservation that 
leads to exclusion. 

Democratic institutions are difficult enough to work 
even with a homogeneous population. The difficulties are 
greatly increased when the population is mixed. Where 
differences are great, the races are likely to respond to the 
same stimulus in different ways. Since the masses every- 
where arc as yet ill educated, there is a danger of the alien 
vote being exploited by political adventurers for anti- 
social purposes. The task of maintaining order and clean 
government may be made more difficult by the lack of 
homogeneity in the population. 

The voting power of even a small minority may under 
skilful guidance exert immense political influence. The 
Irish representatives at Westminster under Parnell’s leader- 
ship held the balance of power in British politics. The 
Canadian Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference in 
1923 pointed out that in the existing state of parties in 
Canada it would be possible, if Indians had the franchise, 
for the Indian vote in British Columbia to determine the 
fate of the Federal Government. 1 The fear of an alien 
minority is intensified when it is connected by race and 
culture with a powerful nation outside. Will the Japanese 
in America forget altogether their ancestral ties and allegi- 
ance ? Will the Indians in South Africa cut themselves 
off completely from the land of their origin and race and 
become South Africans ? It is at least conceivable that 
an alien minority might use its political power to further 
the interests of its kinsmen, and that taking advantage of 
political exigencies it might even succeed in breaking down 

1 The Status of Indians in the British Empire. 1 ’rocecdings at the 
Imperial Conference, 24th, 29th, and 31st October 1923, p. 20. 


the barriers against immigration which the white race 
regard as their only protection against ultimate disposses- 
sion. No people can be expected in the present state of 
the world to grant powers of this kind to those whose 
natural and perfectly legitimate sympathies may be closer 
and more intimate with an alien and potentially hostile 
nation than with the people within whose borders they 

4 I think that every thinking man in South Africa,’ 
General Smuts said at the Imperial Conference, ‘ takes the 
attitude, not that the Indian is inferior to us because of 
his colour or on any other ground — he may be our superior ; 
it is the case of a small civilization, a small community, 
finding itself in danger of being overwhelmed by a much 
older and more powerful civilization ; and it is the economic 
competition from people who have entirely different 
standards and viewpoints from ourselves. . . . For white 
South Africa it is not a question of dignity but a question 
of existence, and no government could for a moment either 
tamper with this position or do anything to meet the Indian 
point of view.’ 1 

Where the sense of solidarity is strong, race constitutes 
a frontier as real as the geographical boundaries which 
separate nations from one another. The frontier may be 
crossed by consent ; to attempt to cross it otherwise is an 
act of invasion. If the right of a people to defend itself 
against assault from without be admitted, its claim can 
hardly be denied to conserve its institutions by refusing a 
share in political power to those who, as it thinks, will 
change them from within. 

Taken by itself, the claim that we have been considering 
seems unanswerable. But to take it by itself is just what 
cannot be done. There are other parties with their claims 
which also deserve a hearing. 

The argument that the franchise cannot be given to 
those who are unfit to exercise it is valid where it applies, 
but it is obvious that there are many cases where it does 
1 The Status of Indians in the British Empire, p. 26. 



not apply. Some members of backward races have emerged 
from a condition of ignorance and incapacity. The prin- 
ciple to which appeal was made to justify exclusion may 
now be invoked as a reason for conceding the franchise. 
As Mr Murphy says, ‘ If it be in conflict with the force of 
reality to call the weak strong and the ignorant wise, it is 
equally at variance with reality to call the strong weak 
and the wise ignorant, to classify a weaker group wholly 
under the assumption of weakness, and — after asking it to 
grow — to deal to the individuals through which its growth 
appears, the same ruthless repression imposed upon the 
most irresponsible of their race.’ 1 

So far as capacity is in question the colour line is not a 
rational one. ‘ The logic neither of words nor facts,’ Lord 
Olivier rightly says, ‘ will uphold it. If adopted it infallibly 
aggravates the virus of the colour problem. The more it 
is ignored the more is that virus attenuated. It is quite 
possible to justify a political generalization — not as a truth, 
but as a working formula — that where the majority of the 
population are Negro peasants, it is advisable to restrict the 
franchise. It is not possible, either as a working political 
formula, or as an anthropological theorem, to justify a 
generalization that there is any political or human function 
for which coloured persons are by their African blood 
disqualified.’ 2 

We have recognized the right of the white race to 
protect its own institutions and live its own life. But the 
other race or races have a similar right to free development, 
and that right is denied when they are excluded from all 
share in political power. No class has ever enjoyed the 
exclusive exercise of power without using it for their own 
advantage. Few men are capable of forming a view 
unbiassed by their own interests. This perversion of 
judgment arises not so much from badness of heart as from 
the natural bias which leads a man to believe too readily 
that an arrangement which suits his own convenience must 

1 F.. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. 228. 

2 Sydney Olivier, White Capital and Coloured Labour, p. 59. 


be beneficial and acceptable to others. Slavery itself was 
justified by high-minded men without conscious insincerity 
as an institution beneficial to mankind and best on the 
whole even for the slaves. 

Deprived of political influence an unenfranchised class 
find themselves helpless to obtain redress or to defend 
themselves against injustice. Without the franchise the 
Natives in South Africa have no hope of obtaining a fairer 
share of the land. Public men may admit the injustice. 
But it is not a question that any political party can afford 
to take up ; it can win no votes, while it would be certain 
to lose many. The monopoly of power which the white 
race claims for the purpose of defence cannot be prevented 
from becoming an instrument of aggression and oppression. 
Experience has proved how easy is the passage ‘ from the 
contention that no Negro shall vote, to the contention 
that no Negro shall learn, that no Negro shall labour, 
and (by implication) that no Negro shall live.’ 1 A class 
excluded from all share in political power is condemned to 
permanent subordination ; it becomes the servant of the 
interests of others, having no share or partnership in a 
common life. 

A solution which has regard exclusively to the interests 
and claims of the white race is no solution at all. The 
irresistible forces of life cannot be suppressed. The in- 
eradicable desire for growth and freedom cannot be held 
permanently in check. Apart from the extermination of 
one race, the only solution is one which provides a higher 
community of interest in which the claims of both races 
find the most complete satisfaction which circumstances 

In the conditions of the world today the question 
has a wider than local significance. For Japan discrimina- 
tion against Japanese who enter the United States touches 
the national honour to the quick. Behind the Indian 
community in South Africa and Kenya are the people 
of India, keenly sensitive to the treatment meted out to 
1 E. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. 30. 


their compatriots. On the question of the status of Indians 
in the Empire, Indian opinion, as the Secretary of State 
pointed out at the Imperial Conference, is unanimous. 
On the solution of the problems involved, it has been 
maintained by a competent authority, ‘ may well depend 
not merely the permanence of the connexion between the 
Indian and the British peoples, but also in no small measure 
the future peace of the world.’ 1 

General Smuts has been quoted as saying that for 
South Africa the question is not one of dignity but of 
existence, the implication being that it is of more vital 
moment to South Africa than it can be to India. But 
dignity, honour and freedom have often been dearer to men 
than life itself. At the imperious call of these sentiments 
men have again and again staked their all. ‘ There is not 
a man either among the Princes or among the humblest 
subjects of His Majesty,’ Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru said at 
the Imperial Conference, ‘ who does not attach great 
importance to the question of Izzat. When Izzat (which 
means honour) is at stake, we prefer death to anything else.’ 

It is not only from the standpoint of the unenfranchised 
that a solution which has regard to the interests of one 
race alone is inadmissible. It is precluded equally by the 
vital interests of the dominant race itself. The principles 
on which a white democracy is based are involved. They 
cannot be denied in one sphere without their authority 
and force being weakened in other spheres. If in the 
relations between races you pay no heed to justice and 
equity on which the social order rests, if you regard as 
unnecessary the social sympathy and mutual understanding 
on which co-operation and progress depend, you arc not 
only doing a wrong to those whose claims are denied, but 
you are undermining the foundations on which the whole 
of western civilization is reared and abandoning the 
traditions and ideals which are the proudest possession of 
western peoples. 

1 L. F. Rushbrook Williams, Statement exhibiting the Moral anel Material 
Progress of India during the Tear 1922-3, p. 2 . 


Our analysis of the problem has left us with two appar- 
ently irreconcileable positions. In view of this impasse 
it becomes necessary to ask whether the difficulty may not 
partly arise from the fact that the issue has been wrongly 
formulated. It may be that neither of the alternatives offers 
a solution that really fits the facts. The proper course may be 
to re-examine our assumptions. The democratic machinery 
which has worked with tolerable though far from complete 
success among homogeneous populations may not be 
suitable without some modification to the needs of a 
. population deeply divided by race, religion and civilization. 
There may be need of new political experiment and inven- 
tion to meet these conditions. The way of escape from 
a situation in which both parties may be to some extent 
the victims of political machinery inadequate for the 
purposes it has to serve, may lie in a fresh and unprejudiced 
study of the conditions with a view to finding some better 
way of dealing with them. Since necessity has ever been 
the mother of invention and difficulties are a challenge to 
men’s creative powers, we may hope that out of the present 
perplexities new conceptions and experiments may arise 
which will enrich the whole of political thought. This 
can come about only if we resolutely refuse to accept any 
solution which takes account of the claims of one side 
alone and press forward to reach a synthesis in which what 
is just in each claim is preserved in an arrangement that 
achieves the good of all. 

We may observe in South Africa the beginnings of a 
movement which may in time have important developments. 
The Native Affairs Act of 1920 has provided for the develop- 
ment throughout the Union of the system of Native 
councils which have long been in existence in the Native 
territories of the Cape Province. These councils are 
empowered to deal with matters of local government, 
including roads, health and education, and to levy taxes 
for the purpose, and they also provide a forum for the 
discussion of matters affecting Native interests. The Act 
also provides that the Governor General may, on the re- 



commendation of the Native Affairs Commission appointed 
under the Act, call conferences of Natives ‘ with a view to 
the ascertainment of the sentiments of the Native popula- 
tion of the Union or of any part thereof, in regard to any 
measure in so far as it may affect such population.’ 

‘ It is obvious,’ says the writer of an able article in the 
Round Table, ‘ that this Act contains the germ of very 
important constitutional developments not only in the 
sphere of Native local self-government but also in the 
organized consultation of Native opinion on the general 
affairs of the country. It may be that we have here the 
beginning of the building up of separate parliamentary 
machinery for the systematic and constitutional expression 
of Native opinion. The Act thus brings into view an 
alternative policy to the admission of Natives to the parlia- 
mentary franchise — the policy of creating parallel Native 
institutions, side by side with the national Parliament, in 
which all sorts of measures can be freely debated by Natives, 
under the guidance of European officers, and in which 
Natives can exercise direct control of taxation and ex- 
penditure specially affecting themselves, and can formulate 
their views for submission to Government and Parliament 
on the general affairs of the country .’ 1 

When the first beginnings were made in the extension 
of representative institutions to India it was found that 
the differences between the two great religious communities, 
the Hindus and the Mohammedans, were so great that 
the only feasible plan was for each community to vote 
separately for its own representatives. Lord Selborne has 
stated that he regards this invention of the communal roll 
as a great contribution to political organization, and his 
reasons deserve to be quoted. ‘ When I was in South 
Africa it was very often my part to argue with my South 
African friends about the absence of all representation of 
the African Native, even the civilized Native, and my 
South African friends used to say : “ Oh, but the white 
man represents the African interests.” It is not true. It 
1 The Round Table , December 1922, pp. 65-6. 



is perfectly impossible for the white man in South Africa 
or anywhere else adequately to represent the Africans. 
The psychology of the two races is different, the point of 
view is different, and the standards of civilization are 
different. . . . That is equally true of the Indian and of 
the European. In any circumstances is it possible to say 
that an Englishman can represent Indian opinion ? Of 
course he cannot. Nor can an Indian adequately represent 
British opinion. Why ? Because they represent two com- 
pletely different civilizations, not inferior or superior 
civilizations, but different civilizations. . . . Therefore, the 
solution for them, as for the African, is the communal 
roll, which, in any Parliament or in any Legislature com- 
posed of three different races, or more than two races, is 
the only method, I believe, by which the real opinion of 
those races can be adequately and permanently protected 
and expressed. Therefore I am surprised and sorrowful 
that any of our Indian fellow-countrymen should be 
ashamed, or appear to be ashamed, of the communal 
system of representation which they invented, and which 
I believe is going to play a great part in the solution of 
many of these problems of popular government in the 
future.’ 1 

The problem that has been discussed in this chapter 
is so grave that every possible line of solution deserves 
to be carefully explored. The separate representation of 
different communities has obvious advantages. The plan 
appears to have worked well in New Zealand, where the 
Maoris elect their own representatives to Parliament. 
But as a means of settling the racial controversies that 
we have been considering, the plan presents great, if not 
insuperable, difficulties. 

In the abstract much can be said in favour of giving 
different communities separate representation in the legis- 
lature. But in the actual conditions of the world today, 
any such proposal will almost inevitably be regarded by 

1 Parliamentary Debates , House of Lords , vol. 54, No. 66 (July 26th, 
1923), p. 1446. 


I 95 

non-white communities as designed to keep them in a 
position of subordination. When General Smuts and 
Lord Selborne, in the speeches which have been quoted, 
assert that to recognize difference does not in an y way 
imply inferiority, they are affirming what as an abstract 
proposition is indisputable. But it has little reference to 
the actual world in which we are living. In South Africa, 
no matter what professions are made, the Indian knows that 
he is treated as an inferior. He has a stake in the country 
but no voice at all in its affairs. He is subject to many 
disabilities ; he is debarred from many opportunities. His 
position is one of inferiority, and he knows it to be the 
intention of the dominant race to keep it such. 

The driving force in the agitation for the franchise is 
the aspiration towards equality. The vote has become a 
symbol. As in the case of women’s suffrage, it is the one 
thing that can give to the members of an unenfranchised 
class an assurance of their full membership in the body 
politic and of their complete validity as persons. This 
demand when it has been aroused can be satisfied only by 
the grant of the same right that others already possess and 
never by something different. Communal representation 
can help towards a solution of political problems in which 
different races are involved only if there is no ground for 
suspecting that the plan is put forward as a means of 
maintaining a position of privilege and dominance and if 
it is recognized to be a stage in evolution towards a genuine 

It is a serious question, however, whether even as a 
stage in evolution it is wise to encourage the growth of 
political organization on racial lines. Disputes between 
different races are apt to acquire a peculiar bitterness, 
because, as we saw in an earlier chapter , 1 marked physical 
differences in appearance supply an external object to the 
eye to which emotions aroused in controversy or the clash 
of interests may attach themselves and so gain through 
association an increased intensity and greater permanence. 

1 Pp- 43-4- 


Looking to the future, it would seem to be the wiser 
course to guard against this danger and to favour forms of 
organization which will tend to make political divisions 
follow other than racial lines. A potent cause of mis- 
understanding and conflict will be removed if associations 
and loyalties can be based on other interests than the 
physical bond of race or colour. 



' I v O the high hopes of human perfectibility and endless 
progress which stirred the minds of men at the close of 
the eighteenth century the most shattering blow was dealt 
by a young clergyman in an English rural parish. ‘ The 
cause of truth and of sound philosophy,’ Thomas Malthus 
believed, ‘ cannot but suffer by substituting wild flights 
and unsupported assertions for patient investigation and 
well-supported proofs .’ 1 The glowing picture of the 
future of human society drawn by William Godwin, 
one of the founders of English philosophical radicalism, 
provoked Malthus to enquire whether such cheering 
expectations were warranted by the hard and inexorable 
facts of human existence. The system of equality pro- 
pounded by Mr Godwin, he admitted, was on a first view 
‘ the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yet 
appeared. . . . The substitution of benevolence, as the 
master-spring and moving principle of society, instead of 
self-love, appears at first sight to be a consummation 
devoutly to be wished.’ But the fair picture was, alas, 
‘ little better than a dream — a phantom of the imagination. 
These “ gorgeous palaces ” of happiness and immortality, 
these “ solemn temples ” of truth and virtue, will dissolve, 
“ like the baseless fabric of a vision,” when we awaken to 
real life and contemplate the genuine situation of man 
on earth .’ 2 

The demand of Malthus was that men should not close 
their eyes to facts. The particular fact on which he insisted 

1 T. R. Malthus, An Essay on Population. Everyman’s Library, vol. ii. 
p. io. 

2 Ibid. p. 1 1 . 



was the pressure of population on the means of subsistence. 
Once again this fact is being forced on our attention. 
Unexpectedly favourable conditions made the problem for 
a time less acute and the issue raised by Malthus receded 
into the background of men’s thinking. But the causes 
which permitted this were temporary, and once more the 
question is being widely discussed. It has a direct bearing 
on the subject of our book, and we must face it squarely 
lest our hopes and our endeavours, ‘ when we awaken to 
real life,’ should prove to be an unsubstantial dream. 

The fact from which we have to start is the astonishing 
fecundity of nature. ‘ There is no bound,’ wrote Benjamin 
Franklin, whom Malthus quotes at the beginning of his 
essay, ‘ to the prolific nature of plants or animals but what 
is made by their crowding and interfering with each other’s 
means of subsistence. Were the face of the earth vacant 
of other plants, it might be gradually sowed and over- 
spread with one kind only, as for instance with fennel : 
and were it empty of other inhabitants, it might in a few 
ages be replenished from one nation only, as for instance 
with Englishmen.’ 1 The streams of life are continually 
tending to overflow their banks. One kind of starfish 
produces two hundred million eggs. Experiments on the 
common slipper-animalcule showed that it possesses the 
capacity of producing in five years a volume of protoplasm 
equal to ten thousand times the volume of the earth. 2 
Countless similar examples might be adduced to illustrate 
the productivity and luxuriance of the natural world. 

Even slow breeding man, as Darwin pointed out, has 
been known to double in twenty years, and at this rate of 
increase there would not be even standing-room for his 
progeny in less than a thousand years. ‘ Between 1906 
and 1 9 1 1 the population of the world increased at such a 
rate that it would double in about sixty years ; and it has 
been calculated that, at the same rate, the present world 

1 T. R. Malthus, An Essay on Population. Everyman’s Library, vol. i. 
pp. 5-6. 

2 J. Arthur Thomson, The System of Animate Nature, vol. i. pp. 5 3 ” 4 - 



population of 1,694,000,000 might proceed from one 
couple in 1782 years.’ 1 The present rate of increase in the 
world’s population is, of course, far below the possible rate 
of increase and far below also the actual rate of increase 
where circumstances have been favourable. The popula- 
tion of North America, Malthus pointed out, had in the 
previous century and a half, apart from immigration, 
doubled itself every twenty-five years. Yet even if the 
present very restricted rate of increase is maintained the 
world will have in sixty years a population of approximately 
3000 millions and in a hundred and twenty years 7000 

The amazing strength of human fecundity creates our 
problem. If natural forces were left to take their course 
there would soon be far more people in the world than the 
world could feed. There is no evidence that human 
fecundity has decreased with civilization ; the view of 
competent opinion is that it has rather increased. 

The question that arises, therefore, is by what means 
the natural increase in population is held in check. Pro- 
fessor Carr-Saunders in his book The Population Problem 
has brought together a large amount of evidence to show 
that among primitive races population was deliberately 
kept down to the level required by infanticide, abortion 
and prolonged abstention from intercourse. 2 In the 
Middle Ages these checks were replaced by postponement 
of marriage. Social customs discouraged early matrimony. 
Whether late marriage is a tolerable means of preventing 
excess of population depends, apart from all other con- 
siderations, on whether there is any hope of its being 
generally adopted without recourse to vice. Prostitution 
and other social evils are a heavy price to pay for the control 
of population by this means. Along with these deliberate 
checks to population there is the constant operation of 
such causes as poverty, under-nourishment, severe labour 
and exposure, all leading to increased susceptibility to 

1 Harold Wright, Population , p. 109. 

2 A. M. Carr-Saunders, The Population Problem, pp. 197-242. 


disease and a higher death-rate. All these are due, Malthus 
maintained, in the last resort to the unchanging pressure 
of population on the amount of food available. If the 
birth-rate is not somehow kept in check the inevitable 
consequence is a rise in the death-rate. Want of food, it 
is important to note, while it is the ultimate check on 
population, is never, in Malthus’ view, except in cases of 
famine, the immediate check. Population is restricted 
before the point of actual starvation is reached. ‘ A man 
who is locked up in a room,’ to use Malthus’ telling illus- 
tration, ‘ may fairly be said to be confined by the walls of 
it, though he may never touch them.’ In recent times a 
new check on population has come into operation through 
the widespread adoption of modern methods of preventing 
conception. This has led in western countries to a rapid 
fall of the birth-rate, more particularly among the more 
prosperous and comfortable classes of the community. 

It is obvious that by some means or other the natural 
growth of population must be held in check. How this is 
to be done is a matter of the profoundest social importance. 
The question may be approached from two sides. It may 
be considered from the standpoint of individual responsi- 
bility and duty. Marriage is the most intimate and sacred 
of human relations, and the bringing into the world and 
training of children the greatest of human responsibilities. 
How many children it is right to have and how, consistently 
with the highest spiritual ideal of marriage, the number 
may be limited to that which reason and conscience dictate 
are among the most important questions that individual 
men and women have to decide. But vital as is their import- 
ance they lie outside our immediate purpose. The other 
approach to the question of population is from the side of 
social science. The statesman has to take into his reckoning 
the motives by which the behaviour of men in the mass 
is in fact influenced and the natural and social forces which 
help to determine their conduct. From this point of view 
the question of the desirable population for any given area 
and the means by which it can be kept at the desired level 



are of the first importance. No attempt can be made to 
answer them here. A great deal of scientific investigation 
still remains to be done before a satisfying answer can be 
found. In the meantime the dissemination of a knowledge 
of modern preventive measures and their use will appear 
to many ‘ as the least of unavoidable evils.’ 1 It is incum- 
bent on those who dissent from this view to state what 
alternative is to be preferred and to show that it does not 
give rise to greater evils. To take the view that so far as 
society as a whole is concerned the use of measures to 
prevent conception is preferable to other means by which 
in practice population is held in check need not blind us to 
the dangers connected with the use of such means ; nor 
does it relieve those who seek to follow the Christian way 
of the necessity of deciding for themselves how far the 
realization of their ideal is helped or hindered by recourse 
to such methods . 2 Neither does it do away with the duty 
which those who have been blessed with a good biological 
inheritance and sufficient material resources owe to society 
to transmit that inheritance to future generations and rear 
children who are capable of helping mankind in its upward 
march. The quality of population is a matter at least as 
important as its quantity. 

For a time it seemed as if facts had given the lie to 
Malthus’ theories. To many of the acutest minds in the 
nineteenth century it appeared that growth in population 
and wealth went hand in hand. The industrial revolution 
called millions of additional lives into existence and pro- 
vided the subsistence that they needed. The revolution 
in transport brought about by the steam-engine and the 
invention of labour-saving agricultural machinery enabled 

1 W. R. Inge, Outspoken Essays (First Series), p. 75. 

2 A helpful discussion of the subject, in which the different views held 
by Christian people are stated, will be found in the Report of the Commission 
on the Relations of the Sexes, presented to the Conference on Christian 
Politics, Economics and Citizenship, April 1924. There is also a fine and 
penetrating study of the moral and spiritual problems involved in birth 
control by Professor and Mrs A. D. Lindsay in the Hibbert Journal of 
January 1924. 


the land already under cultivation to support a much 
larger population, while the vast fertile lands of the North 
American continent opened up new and for a time in- 
exhaustible sources of supply. Population increased more 
rapidly than it had ever done and at the same time the 
standard of living rose. Malthus’ devil was safely shut up 
in chains. But the favourable circumstances which made 
this development possible were exceptional and are not 
likely to recur. There are no remaining spaces to be 
cultivated like the vast wheat-growing plains of North 
America. It is difficult to imagine any improvement in 
transportation comparable to the revolution effected by 
the steam-engine. The conditions which made rapid 
expansion possible seem to be passing. The question of 
the limits of population is again coming to the fore. 

Whether the growth of population is beginning to 
overtake the means of subsistence is a question on which 
the widest divergence of view exists. The amateur must 
go warily since pitfalls abound and even recognized authori- 
ties are apt to leave important factors out of their reckoning. 
We have to be on our guard, for example, against the 
optimism which disposes of the problem by pointing to 
large tracts not yet under cultivation. Such lands un- 
doubtedly exist, but their extent is limited. Much of the 
surface of the globe is not cultivable, and of that which 
might be brought under the plough a great deal can 
be cultivated only at increased cost. Greater cost means 
enhanced prices. Food becomes dearer and the standard 
of living is lowered. We must beware also of facile 
demonstrations which, fastening on the instances in which 
cultivation yields its largest returns, point out what the 
yield might be if the whole world were cultivated in the 
same way. In an argument of this kind no allowance is 
made for the special circumstances which render large 
returns possible in a particular area. One writer disposes 
of the Malthusian argument as quackery by arguing that 
a hundred acres cropped with potatoes will feed 420 per- 
sons, while a hundred acres of grass turned into beef will 



feed only 15. Thus, he says, a given area might support 
5 millions on the one dietary and 120 millions on the 
other. 1 Not only is this, as the writer admits, a very 
extreme case, but the habits of people cannot be changed 
by a stroke of the pen. It is futile to argue what might be 
done in a world in which people have no prejudices, no 
preferences and no habits. 

On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the food 
supply of the world can still be largely increased. Im- 
provements in social organization would make possible the 
maintenance of a larger population without any diminution 
in the standard of living. If the right use were made of 
the scientific knowledge we already possess, if some of the 
many causes of friction and waste in the social system were 
eliminated and the heavy burden of armaments, for example, 
reduced, much more might be produced than at present 
and many more people maintained in comfort. Sir William 
Beveridge, a high authority, in his presidential address to 
the section of Economic Science and Statistics at the 
meeting of the British Association in 1923, pointed out 
that unemployment is not in itself any proof of over- 
population, and declared that ‘ man for his present troubles 
had to accuse neither the niggardliness of nature nor his 
own instinct of reproduction, but other instincts as primitive 
and, in excess, as fatal to Utopian dreams.’ 2 

At the same time, if Malthus is right, an increase in the 
food supply, however considerable, cannot in itself provide 
any solution of the problem, since with the increase 
population also increases. £ A multitude of the unborn 
are always crowding round the door of life. Open it a 
little way and they squeeze through in such numbers that 
you will have much ado to close it again.’ 3 

There does not seem to be any escape from the fact 
that our planet is getting filled up. We can perhaps best 
realize the consequences if we imagine what would happen 

1 The New Statesman, February 1 6th, 1924^. 538. 

2 The Times, September 1 8th, 1923. 

3 Harold Wright, Population, p. 67. 


if the population of the world were to remain as it is today 
and the planet were to shrink to half its size. There would 
be half as much food to go round. Lands at present 
uncultivated would, as in the war, be brought under the 
plough and the system of allotments would be re-established. 
This would go a little way to relieve the strain, but the lot 
of humanity would have become immeasurably harder. 
A doubling of the present population must have the same 
effects, except that it would be more gradual and allow 
more time for developing fresh resources and improving 
organization. But some limit there must be, and the 
question is when it will be reached. 

This is a matter, as has already been said, that is hotly 
debated. I take the estimate of Professor East, which 
seems to be based on careful investigation and to be 
remarkably free from the bias which is apt to be imported 
into discussions of this subject. Assuming ‘ that there will 
be sane beneficent governments, adequate means of 
distribution, constant efficient effort equal to that of 
western Europe during periods of peace, agricultural 
production equivalent to a return per acre midway between 
the average and the best in the world today, and a 
standard of living on a parity with what is found in the 
more densely populated countries of Europe,’ he reckons 
that the maximum population which the world could 
support is 5200 millions, and that at the present rate of 
increase this limit will be reached in a century. 1 

It is immaterial for our present purpose whether we 
regard this estimate as too optimistic or too pessimistic. 
It is obvious that if there are wars and friction and lack 
of co-operation the food supply must be affected and 
things are likely to be worse. Scientific discoveries might 
be made which would lessen the pressure for a time. The 
essential matter is that there are limits somewhere, and 
that as the population of the world increases, competition 
for the food it yields is likely to become keener. 

If there is not room for everybody on the planet, the 
1 Edward M. East, Mankind at the Crossroads , p. 69. 



question inevitably arises who is to have the room. If 
there are limits to the population which the earth can 
support, how is that population to be composed ? The 
desire to obtain access to supplies of food and to the sources 
of wealth by which food may be purchased to meet the 
needs of an expanding population is the chief cause of 
the national jealousies and rivalries by which the world 
is distracted today. These national rivalries are in danger 
of becoming exceptionally embittered if the feelings aroused 
by the conflict of economic interests are re-enforced by the 
suspicions, fears and antipathies engendered by race. 

In regard to the facts of the present distribution of 
the world’s population there is considerable difference of 
opinion. Dr Lothrop Stoddard divides the population of 
the world in 1914 into 550 million whites, 500 million 
yellows, 450 million browns, 150 million blacks and 
40 million reds. 1 These figures are constantly quoted in 
other books. Professor East, however, on the basis of very 
careful examination of available data, arrives at rather 
different totals. His results show for the year 1916, 
710 million whites, 510 million yellows, 420 million browns 
and no million blacks. 2 It will be noted that the pro- 
portion of whites to the total population of the world is 
in this estimate much larger. Professor East does not give 
the details of his calculation, but a difference in the matter 
of some millions in the present population is not a matter 
of the first importance. 

Of greater interest is the rate of increase. On this 
point Dr Stoddard asserts that whites tend to double in 
eighty years, yellows and browns in sixty and blacks in 
forty. 3 This statement also has been constantly repeated, 
and in regard to the persistence of the white race would 
be serious if it were true. But it is practically certain 
that it is not true. Adequate data for exact calculation 
are lacking. But Professor East, who, whether his results 

1 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour , pp. 6-7. 

2 Edward M. East, Mankind at the Crossroads, pp. 1 1 1-2. 

3 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Colour , p. 7. 


are correct or not, is not trying to prove any theory or to 
support the conclusions of any particular school, after 
careful study arrives at the conclusion that at present 
rates of increase whites may be expected to double in 
58 years, browns in 278, yellows in 232 and blacks in 139. 
This relative rate of increase is entirely different from the 
estimate of Dr Stoddard. If Professor East’s calculations 
are correct the white race will by the middle of the present 
century actually outnumber all other races combined. 1 

I am not sure that I find Professor East’s forecasts of 
the future entirely convincing in detail. But he effectively 
disposes of the view that the white race is increasing more 
slowly than others. It is increasing faster and for an 
obvious reason. Practically all the still vacant places in 
the world are in its possession. Nine-tenths of the habitable 
globe are under the political control of white peoples. If 
anxiety is felt about the distribution of population and 
territory, there is more cause for it being felt among coloured 
peoples than among white. 

We saw in the chapter on Immigration that the 
conception of population as a tide constantly tending to 
break its bounds and overflow in migration is not in accord 
with the facts. 2 Yet the growth of population may in the 
region of ideas have a profound influence on the relations 
between peoples.’ The necessity of providing for the 
needs of a growing industrial population tends to drive 
statesmen to seek new markets and new sources of supply, 
and thus a fierce competition arises between nations. 
Again, where two peoples have come to look on one another 
as potential enemies, the growth in numbers of one, while 
the other from choice or from necessity remains stationary, 
involves a change in relative military strength. In the 
facts of population, and the fears evoked by them, is to be 
found perhaps the deepest cause of the hostility between 
France and Germany and the consequent disturbance of 
the peace of the world. 

1 Edward M. East, Mankind at the Crossroads , p. 1 1 5. 

2 Pp. 129-30. 



The industrialization of Asia may be expected to lead 
to an intensified competition for the raw materials of 
the world. It may become an increasing menace to the 
industrial position of western nations. This fear is present 
at any rate in the minds of some. Dr Josey, in his Race 
and National Solidarity argues that in the leading countries 
of Europe and America there has grown up an immense 
population dependent upon industry, and that to main- 
tain that industry they must have markets. If they allow 
Asia to become industrialized, goods manufactured in Asia 
will drive out their goods from those markets and, it may 
be, compete with them in their home markets. The 
inevitable consequence is that millions of their people will 
die. ‘ As millions of Europeans came into existence as a 
result of our industrial system, so millions will have to die, 
if this industrial system fails.’ 1 The competition is likely 
to be all the more severe if the Asiatic peoples are pre- 
pared to work longer and harder and to be content with a 
lower standard of living than the peoples of the West. 

If fear exists on the one side, there is no less cause for 
it on the other. Not only the white but the other races also 
have to live. They too have to face an intensified demand 
for food and raw materials. The problem of maintaining 
a population dependent on industry will become for them 
increasingly acute. And as the struggle becomes more 
intense they will realize more and more that the control 
of essential materials is to an enormous extent in the hands 
of western peoples. Moreover transport is the bottle-neck 
of industry ; it matters not how large the supply of raw 
materials may be if they are out of reach. Great Britain 
and America together can control the ocean routes of the 
world. From the standpoint of other peoples this gives 
them a strangle-hold should they choose to use it. 

Sir Frederick Lugard, in his book The Dual Mandate 
in British Tropical Africa , has pointed out to how great 
an extent western industrial communities have become 
dependent on the raw materials of the tropics. ‘ Demo- 
1 C. C. Josey, Race and National Solidarity, p. 59. 


cracy,’ he says (meaning British democracy), ‘ has learnt 
by the war how absolutely dependent it is on the supply 
of these vital necessities from overseas, and even for the 
material for munitions in time of war. We have realized 
that the import can only be maintained by command of 
the seas. Some of these tropical dependencies are essential 
as naval bases, as cable and wireless stations, and as aero- 
dromes, for that command of sea and air and of world 
communications upon which these islands depend for their 
existence. Without them we could only survive on such 
terms as the powerful nations might choose to dictate.’ 1 
The logic of this argument will to a British mind appear 
unanswerable. But the impression which the passage would 
make on the mind of a German, a Swiss, an Italian, a 
Japanese, a Chinese or an Indian would be very different. 
They know that they too are dependent on ‘ these vital 
necessities from overseas.’ But they do not have command 
of the seas. Without it have they any alternative but to 
‘ survive on such terms as the powerful nations might 
choose to dictate ’ ? Is the actual experience likely to be 
more pleasing or tolerable to them than the prospect of 
it would be to Englishmen ? 

In the world as it is today the vital issues in the rela- 
tions between peoples are economic. Their national life is 
dependent on access to raw materials. As population grows 
the demand for these materials must increase and the com- 
petition for them become keener. 

Economic questions have directly nothing to do with 
race. It is meaningless to speak of the 710 millions of 
whites (if that is the correct figure) as if they had any 
community of economic interests. In the economic sphere 
their interests are in many respects opposed. If Great 
Britain and America were to unite to secure a monopoly 
against the rest of the world in certain essential materials, 
the peoples deprived of access to these materials would 
combine against them quite irrespective of race. It would 
make comparatively little difference to those who had to 
1 Sir F. D. Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa , p. 609. 



suffer whether a particular British industry was killed by 
the competition of Asia or by that of new industries in 
Canada or Australia developed by their own race. 

But while race has no direct connexion with the 
economic struggle, racial differences, as we have seen, 
may import into rivalries between peoples a new tone of 
bitterness. Dislike and fear of a competitor are apt to be 
heightened when his appearance, customs and habits are 
unfamiliar and strange, and the clash of economic interests 
may be exacerbated by the powerful passions of racial 
prejudice and antipathy. 

We have tried in this chapter to see the conditions of 
human life as they really are. We have not shrunk from 
contemplating, as Malthus bade us do, ‘ the genuine 
situation of man on Earth.’ No attempt has been made 
to shirk the ultimate issue which any proposals for im- 
proving relations between the different divisions of man- 
kind have to meet. That issue is that in the last resort 
men have to live. Bread is the basis of their physical 
existence. When they cannot get it, they will not die 
quietly. When they are faced with hunger or the fear of 
hunger, reason loses its hold over their minds. To be 
moral becomes immeasurably more difficult. ‘ If world 
saturation of population,’ Professor East says, ‘ which 
approaches speedily, is not prevented, in its train will come 
more wars, more famine, more disease. With the struggle 
for existence made more acute by such a condition, 
the possibility of helpful co-operation among mankind 
disappears.’ 1 

The result to which mankind may be tending has 
been thus described by Dean Inge. ‘ When we reflect on 
the whole problem in its widest aspects, we see that civilized 
humanity is confronted by a choice of Hercules. On the 
one side, biological law seems to urge us forward to the 
struggle for existence and expansion. The nation in that 
case will have to be organized on the lines of greatest 
efficiency. A strong centralized government will occupy 
1 Edward M. East, Mankind at the Crossroads, p. 299. 


itself largely in preventing waste. All the resources of 
the nation must be used to the uttermost. Parks must 
be cut up into allotments ; the unproductive labours of 
the scholar and thinker must be jealously controlled and 
limited. Inefficient citizens must be weeded out ; wages 
must be low and hours of work long. Moreover, the 
State must be organized for war ; for its neighbours, we 
must suppose, are following the same policy. Then the 
fierce extra-group competition must come to its logical 
arbitrament in a life and death struggle.’ 1 

Malthus’ devil, whom the nineteenth century thought 
to be safely shut up in prison, appears again to have become 
unchained. But it is one thing to recognize that he creates 
a formidable danger, and quite another to yield him the 
field. When devils are abroad the time has come for 
Christians to sharpen their swords. The thing to do with 
a dragon is not to pretend that he is not there or that he is 
less fierce than he looks, but to set St George on his tracks. 
When Christian, in Bunyan’s immortal work, £ espied a foul 
fiend coming over the field to meet him ’ he began ‘ to 
cast in his mind whether to go back or to stand his 
ground. But he considered again, that he had no armour 
for his back, and therefore thought that to turn the back 
to him, might give him greater advantage with ease to 
pierce him with his darts ; therefore he resolved to venture, 
and stand his ground. For, thought he, had I no more in 
my eye, than the saving of my life, ’twould be the best 
way to stand.’ Even in face of the formidable difficulties 
encountered in this chapter we need not hesitate to stand 
our ground. Reflexion will convince us that the way 
through these difficulties, as through others, lies in the 
more determined application of Christian principles. 

It may help towards an understanding of the problem 
if we reduce it to a smaller scale, where experience can 
guide us. It does not always happen that when there is 
not room for all a struggle is inevitable. The temptation 
to fight is undoubtedly strong but men do not always 
1 W. R. Inge, Outspoken Essays (First Series), pp. 75-6. 


21 1 

yield to it. Hundreds of records of sinking ships are proof 
of this. Order, discipline, honour and chivalry hold the 
instinct of self-preservation in check. 

Just as little is it true in experience that when food is 
short men always fight to obtain a share of it. When the 
steamer T revessa foundered in 1923 the crew had to take 
to the boats and twenty-two days passed before they 
reached land. In the captain’s boat the rations consisted 
of the lid of a cigarette tin full of condensed milk twice 
daily and one biscuit. The daily allowance of water was 
one-third of a cigarette tin. Notwithstanding the sufferings 
which the men had to endure perfect discipline prevailed. 
In Captain Scott’s expedition to the South Pole we read 
in the record of one of the parties : ‘ There is no doubt 
that during this period we were all miserably hungry, 
even directly after the meals. Towards the end of June 
we had to cut down still more, and have only one biscuit 
per day, and after July to stop the biscuit ration altogether 
until September, when we started one biscuit a day again.’ 
Yet the resolution of the party was not weakened nor their 
co-operation interrupted by the shortage of food. These 
and countless similar instances show that it is part of normal 
human experience for the crude instinct of self-preservation 
to be subordinated to the dictates of prudence and disci- 
pline and for the competitive interest to be replaced and 
completely controlled by non-competitive interests. 

It is, then, a plain fact of experience that man does 
not live by bread alone. Loyalty, comradeship and honour 
do in fact often mean more to him than bread. It is 
by resolutely subordinating the question of food to the 
demands of loyalty and co-operation that in times of 
stress and danger men find their greatest chance of safety. 
And even if the attempt proves hopeless, brave men prefer 
to die rather than tarnish their honour or fail in loyalty to 
their comrades. It is precisely these qualities that give 
to human life its dignity, nobility and glory, and make a 
genuine civilization possible. 

When we consider the relations of mankind as a whole 


the problem presents itself on a vastly larger scale and its 
difficulty is in consequence enormously greater, but its 
essential nature is not changed. The question is whether 
the primitive struggle for the means of subsistence is to 
be allowed to dominate human life, or whether that struggle 
is to be subordinated to the control of reason and the 
demands of a humane and civilized existence. 

Just as the men in the boats of the Trevessa would 
never have reached land in safety if they had fought for 
the small supplies of water, milk and biscuit, so in the 
world at large if men insist on putting material things first 
a solution of their problems will become impossible. It 
is true that the interests of men in the satisfaction of their 
physical wants are competitive. The supply of material 
things, while it may be increased by co-operation, is limited 
in amount, and what one has another must lack. But 
unless these competitive interests are transformed by being 
made to minister to a common social purpose, a humane 
and civilized existence becomes impossible. Only along 
the line of an increasing partnership can there be any 
escape from the difficulties we have encountered. 

The idea that war is necessary to keep population 
within bounds and is nature’s stern method of ensuring 
the survival of the best is entirely contrary to the facts. 
War with modern weapons is dysgenic in the highest degree. 
It takes toll of the best. Nor does it afford any alleviation 
of the population problem. The dislocation of industrial 
organization and the means of transport, on which the 
complex life of modern society depends, and the deteriora- 
tion of the soil through neglect are so great, as the last 
war has shown, that the restoration of supplies to the former 
level is apt to be a more difficult and slower process than 
the recovery of population. The pressure of population 
on the means of subsistence thus becomes more severe. 
When competitive interests are allowed to dominate, the 
friction, bitterness and passive hostility to which they 
inevitably give rise, even when they do not lead to war, 
are a heavy clog on progress. 



If, on the other hand, men were to recognize in their 
wider relations what they have learned in experience to 
be true in more restricted spheres, that man does not live 
by bread alone and that his life, in so far as it is genuinely 
and characteristically human, does not consist in the 
abundance of the things that he possesses, a new spirit of 
co-operation would by eliminating the present friction 
and waste bring about a large increase in available resources. 
While population might in time again encroach on the 
increased supply mankind would be given a breathing 
space in which to obtain intelligent control over one of 
the greatest forces that determine its happiness or misery. 
The temptation, which now exists, to encourage the 
growth of population for reasons of national defence would 
be removed. The energies and resources at present required 
for defence against war would be available for dealing with 
the problem of population and food supply by scientific 
research and popular education. A serious attempt could 
be made to abolish poverty. Experience seems to show 
that those whose livelihood is precarious and whose sense 
of responsibility is thus weakened tend to multiply more 
rapidly than other classes in the community ; and that 
the motives which lead to restriction of numbers in a 
family operate most strongly when a certain standard of 
comfort has been reached. A general improvement in 
the standard of living might therefore prove to be the 
most effective of all means of limiting the growth of 

Those are right who insist on the gravity of the popu- 
lation problem. But the remedy put forward in many 
quarters is at best a partial one and does not touch the 
root of the trouble. It is urged that salvation is to 
be found in the widespread adoption of modern methods 
of preventing conception. These methods, as has already 
been recognized, may have their part to play in dealing 
with the problem. But the deepest moral and spiritual 
problems of mankind will not be solved by mechanical 
contrivances alone nor by any easy and simple device but 


only by the costly energies and adventures of the soul. 
Reliance on preventive methods alone leaves certain 
fundamental difficulties in the population problem un- 
touched. Such methods are most readily adopted by the 
more educated, intelligent and capable sections of the 
population and there is consequently a danger of the 
multiplication of inferior strains rather than of the best. 
Humanity will be less able to solve its problems if the 
quality of its biological inheritance is allowed to deteriorate. 
The situation will not be made more hopeful if the better 
stocks die out while the less fit continue to multiply. 
Again, in the world as it is today, a stationary population 
is apt to see in the expansion and growing preponderance 
of its neighbours a menace to its own existence. The fear 
which is thus created may prove an insuperable obstacle to 
the co-operation which is essential for the solution of our 

A new spirit alone can create the conditions in which 
the problem of population can be taken in hand with 
success. If we will seek first the Kingdom of God — and 
in no other way — we shall find that all other things are 
added unto us. 



COME of the principal problems that arise in the relations 
^ between different races have now been reviewed. 
Our sense of their complexity and difficulty must have 
deepened as we proceeded. The question to which we 
must now return is what contribution Christianity has to 
make to the solution of these problems. 

A passage in the late Professor Ernst Troeltsch’s great 
work Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen will. afford 
some guidance as to the kind of answer which we may 
expect to this question. Has Christianity, he asks at the 
close of his long historical survey, any contribution to make 
to the solution of the social problems of today — the 
problems created by the capitalistic system, by the modern 
bureaucratic and militarized state, by the enormous in- 
crease of population, by mass production and international 
trade ? None of the social philosophies of the past, neither 
the conceptions of the mediaeval Church nor the ideas thus 
far evolved by modern Protestantism, are in the least 
adequate to deal with the new conditions. If the Christian 
spirit is to exert a controlling influence on these modern 
developments it can only be by means of ‘ new thoughts 
which have not yet been thought,’ by fresh insights and 
conceptions that are still waiting to be born. They will 
be drawn from the inner propulsion of the Christian idea — 
not from the New Testament alone, though it remains the 
inexhaustible fountain-head of Christian inspiration, but 
from that living wrestling of the Christian view with actual 
conditions, through which the conceptions of the New 
Testament receive fresh illumination and disclose new 
depths of meaning in every age. 



But tremendous as may be the forces that this new 
vision will set in motion, they will not, any more than the 
visions of the past, bring to pass in completed form the 
Kingdom of God on earth. ‘ It is one of the weightiest 
and most solemnizing insights resulting from our enquiry,’ 
Troeltsch asserts, £ that every idea finds itself in conflict 
with brutal actuality, every upward movement is beset 
with hindrances without and within. There is no absolute 
Christian ethic to be discovered now for the first time, 
but only, as in the past, the mastery of given and con- 
tinually changing situations as these arise. There is no 
absolute ethical transformation of physical or of human 
nature, but only the continued struggle with both. . . . 
Therein lies the unceasing forward straining and tension 
and incompleteness of all moral effort. Only doctrinaire 
idealists and religious enthusiasts who soar above everything 
earthly will refuse to recognize this. Faith is indeed the 
might in which life’s battle is to be fought, but life 
itself remains a battle that is continually being renewed on 
ever-changing fronts. For every threatening chasm that 
is closed another opens at our feet. Yet it remains true 
— and that is the conclusion which embraces everything 
else — that the Kingdom of God is within us. We must in 
trustful and unresting labour let our light shine before 
men, that they may see our good works and glorify our 
Father in heaven. The final ends of all human life are 
hidden in His hands.’ 1 

We shall not expect, then, to find quick or easy solutions 
of the problems we have been considering. So long as men 
are as little disposed as they are now to put the larger good 
above more immediate, personal and selfish interests, so 
long as their minds continue to be swayed by false ideas, 
certain achievements must remain beyond their reach. A 
long process of education not only in the narrower sense of 
schooling but through the slowly ripening experience of 
life, a large improvement and fresh inventions in social and 
political organization and a new understanding and mastery 

1 Ernst Troeltsch, Die Sozial/ehren der christlicben Kir c hen, pp. 985-6. 



of economic conditions are part of the necessary foundation 
on which harmony and effective co-operation between the 
peoples of the world must be built up. 

But while the final goal of human endeavour lies hid 
beyond the far distant horizon we are not left without lights 
by which to steer our course. From the attempt to apply 
the Christian ideal of life to the actual problems involved in 
the contact of races in the world today we may expect to 
gain some deeper understanding of the meaning of that 
ideal and of the influence it should have upon our conduct. 
From our discussions three principles seem to emerge 
which may help to determine our attitude towards the 
questions involved in the relations between races. 

First, we shall not ignore or under-rate the importance 
of race. The biological inheritance of different races is 
something given, which we cannot alter. We must respect 
it and seek to understand it as we do other facts in the 
world that God has made. It is the clay which education 
and social agencies and religion must learn to mould into 
ever fairer shapes. A good workman must know his 
materials and their laws, and all that science can teach in 
regard to biological facts must be of value to statesmen, 
educators, religious teachers and all who are seeking to 
promote the moral advancement of mankind. 

The members of a particular race have not only a 
common biological inheritance but also in the main a 
common history. The same influences of climate and 
soil and scenery have contributed to the formation of their 
character, encouraging the growth of certain dispositions 
and inhibiting that of others. The same historical ex- 
periences of conquest or defeat, the same social institu- 
tions, the same traditions, the same heritage of philosophy 
and religion, of literature and art have contributed to 
shaping their thought and outlook. Race, therefore, as it 
actually meets us, means something far more than biological 
inheritance. The facts of history, the slow moulding 
influence of centuries, the accumulating experience trans- 
mitted from generation to generation have all to be 


taken into account when we think of races as they are 

We must not exaggerate these facts, nor in recognizing 
that there is a given element in human nature forget how 
plastic at the same time that nature is. Human nature in 
its structure ‘ is undoubtedly the most plastic part of the 
living world, the most adaptable, the most educable. Of 
all animals, it is man in whom heredity counts for least, 
and conscious building forces for most. Consider that his 
infancy is longest, his instincts least fixed, his brain most 
unfinished at birth, his powers of habit-making and habit- 
changing most marked, his susceptibility to social impres- 
sions keenest — and it becomes clear that in every way 
nature, as a prescriptive power, has provided in him for 
her own displacement. Having provided the raw material, 
nature now charters man to complete the work and make 
of himself what he will.’ 1 Thanks to this plasticity of 
man’s nature even the customs and habits of centuries may 
under the influence of new ideas, as experience has proved, 
undergo large modifications in a very short space of time. 

Yet while human nature can be changed, and the 
change may sometimes take place more rapidly than is 
expected, the realities of heredity and of the historical 
past cannot be set aside. They must enter into all our 
calculations of the best course to be adopted in any given 
circumstances. The work of the statesman, the adminis- 
trator and the educator will be well done only in so far as 
they are able to see things as they really are, and base their 
work on truth. 

A second principle which emerges from our study is 
that we must not, in recognizing the significance of race, 
allow it to obscure from us the reality, uniqueness and 
value of the individual. 

The true life of a man is that of a person in relation 
with other persons. One of the greatest evils from which 
we suffer today is that modern society with its increasing 

1 W. E. Hocking, Human Nature and its Remaking, Revised Edition, 
pp. 15-16. (First Edition, pp. 9-10.) 



organization, its impersonal methods of dealing with men 
in the mass, and its substitution of the relations of groups 
with groups for those of individuals with individuals, is 
tending to make life mechanical and rob us of our humanity. 
This disease of modern civilization has been powerfully 
described by Dr Albert Schweitzer. The circumstances of 
modern life, he says ‘ do not allow us to deal with each other 
as man to man, for the limitations placed upon the activities 
of the natural man are so general and so unbroken that we 
get accustomed to them, and no longer feel our mechanical, 
impersonal intercourse to be something that is unnatural. 
We no longer feel uncomfortable that in such a number of 
situations we can no longer be men among men, and at last 
we give up trying to be so, even when it would be possible 
and proper. . . . 

‘ Wherever there is lost the consciousness that every 
man is an object of concern for us just because he is man, 
civilization and morals are shaken, and the advance to 
fully developed inhumanity is only a question of time. As 
a matter of fact, the most utterly inhuman thoughts have 
been current among us for two generations past in all the 
ugly clearness of language and with the authority of logical 
principles. There has been created a social mentality 
which discourages humanity in individuals. The courtesy 
produced by natural feeling disappears, and in its place 
comes a behaviour which shows entire indifference, even 
though it is decked out more or less thoroughly in a code 
of manners. The stand-offishness and want of sympathy 
which are shown so clearly in every way to strangers are 
no longer felt as being really rudeness, but pass for the 
behaviour of the man of the world. Our society has also 
ceased to allow to all men, as such, a human value and a 
human dignity ; many sections of the human race have 
become merely raw material and property in human 
form .’ 1 

This dehumanizing of life is especially marked in the 

1 Albert Schweitzer, The Decay and the Restoration of Civilization , 
pp. 24-5. 


relations between different races. The individual becomes 
merged and entirely lost in the mass. Men fall into the 
habit of talking of Japan or India, of America or England, 
of black and white, and in the use of these abstractions 
there fades from their minds the picture of myriads of 
individuals, each a world in himself, whose personal fears 
and hopes and longings and possibilities of growth give to 
human life its real interest and significance. 

If we wish to live in the world as Christians and to 
create the conditions of a true civilization we must learn 
as men to enter into relations with men. We must allow 
no walls of difference to shut us off from the humanity that 
is in every man. Whatever significance race may have, it 
cannot do away with the claim of every man to be treated 
as a man. The humanitarian movement which led to the 
abolition of slavery erred at times in not taking sufficient 
account of human differences. But the inscription on the 
seal of the Anti-Slavery Society beneath the figure of a 
Negro in chains, ‘ Am I not a man and a brother ? ’ gave 
expression to a profound and eternal truth. 

Here then we have a principle of transcendent import- 
ance in the determination of our personal attitude towards 
those belonging to another race. We shall never reconcile 
ourselves to treating men merely as members of a class. 
We shall constantly strive to know them as human beings, 
and to establish with them human relations of under- 
standing, sympathy, comradeship and co-operation. This 
resolve and attitude are unaffected by any conclusions of 
biology or ethnology. No teaching of science can compel 
me to treat my fellow-man otherwise than as a man ; all 
it can do is to help to establish the relations between 
us on a more secure foundation of knowledge and 

To resolve always and everywhere to treat men as men 
would not provide an immediate solution of the problems 
we are considering. The expression of the new attitude 
in the social and political sphere must be a slow and gradual 
process. But in proportion as individuals freed themselves 



from the tyranny of abstractions and classifications, and 
began ‘ to busy themselves intimately with all the human 
and vital processes which are being played out around them, 
and to give themselves as men to the man who needs human 
help and sympathy ,’ 1 a new atmosphere would be created 
in which solutions of the larger problems would become 
possible. A new spirit would permeate society. Like the 
touch of spring it would loosen the hard and unyielding 
masses in which human life has become set and allow 
powers of life till now hidden in the ground to sprout and 
fill the world with their beauty and fragrance. Instead of 
remaining within the narrow walls of racial prejudice and 
the prison house of our dislikes and hates and fears, we 
should pass into an ampler and freer world in which we 
would live as men among men and nothing human would 
be alien to us. A new impetus would be given to progress 
and civilization. ‘ Reverence for life,’ as Dr Schweitzer 
says, necessarily involves ‘ the devising and willing of every 
kind and degree of progress of which man and humanity 
are capable. Thus it throws us into an atmosphere of 
never-resting thought and action for the sake of civilization, 
but withal as ethical men .’ 2 

This vitalizing and humanizing appreciation of the 
value of the individual has its source and inspiration in 
religious faith. As we saw in an earlier chapter 3 it is not 
easy to attribute to men in their natural condition a high 
value. Their worth lies in their relation to God. It is 
because He loves them and because of what He can make of 
them that their lives have an infinite meaning. It is when 
we see men not merely as they are in themselves but in 
their relation to the Kingdom of God that they gain a new 
significance in our eyes. 

Historically the creation of this sense of the value of 
the individual was largely the work of Christianity. Its 

1 Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics, p. 269. 

2 Ibid., pp. 277-8. This book of Dr Schweitzer’s contains a suggestive 
exposition of the principle we are here considering'. 

3 Pp. 19-20. 


religious faith in unrestricted human possibility effected a 
revolution in the ideas of the ancient world. The charge 
brought against Christianity by Celsus at the close of the 
second century is well known. ‘ Let us now hear what 
sort of people these Christians invite. “ Anyone who is a 
sinner,” they say, “ or foolish, or simple-minded — in short, 
any unfortunate will be accepted by the kingdom of God.” 
By “ sinner ” is meant an unjust person, a thief, a burglar, 
a poisoner, a sacrilegious man, or a robber of corpses. Why, 
if you wanted an assembly of robbers, these are just the 
sort of people you would summon ! ’ 1 The new faith in 
human nature, created by a new apprehension of God, 
overleapt all natural barriers which separate men from 
one another. 

The Christian faith not only provides an unassailable 
foundation for belief in the value of the individual and 
consequently for social, moral and spiritual progress but 
enables us at the same time to deal with the psychological 
problem involved in our attitude to our fellow-men. 
Nothing is harder than to like those whom we naturally 
dislike. Our feelings are there and we cannot change 
them. Christianity opens a way out of the circle in which 
we are confined by our prejudices and dislikes. It widens, 
and so transforms, the issue by bringing in God. It does 
not command us to like those whom we naturally dislike. 

It does something quite different. It tells us that God 
loves them. It invites us to co-operate with God in His 
purpose for them. 

The man whom we dislike may belong to a different 
race or caste or sect. It may be impossible for us to 
rise above those barriers. But what Christianity says, as 
Professor Royce has put it, is ‘ Do not consider these 
unhappy facts as having any bearing on your love for him. 
For the ethical side of the doctrine of life concerns not 
what you find , but what you are to create. Now God 
means this man to become a member of the community 

1 Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, vol. i. j 
p. 104. 



which constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven ; and God loves 
this man accordingly. View him, then, as the soldier views 
the comrade who serves the same flag with himself, and 
who dies for the same cause. In the Kingdom you, and 
your enemy, and yonder stranger, are one.’ 1 

Psychologically, this approach to the question makes 
all the difference in the world. Christianity bids us raise 
our eyes from our fellow-men to God. It engages our 
imagination first of all not with those whom we may find 
repellent, but with Christ whom we love. It asks us to 
love not men as they are, but the man in men, the man 
who is the object of God’s interest and care, the man for 
whom Christ died. Christianity thus lifts us above the 
direct relation with another individual in which all our 
efforts to like may only stimulate and strengthen feelings 
of antagonism, and centres our interest in God, calling us 
to co-operate in the carrying out of His purposes and to 
serve those for whom He cares. And in serving men for 
God’s sake, we find ourselves to our surprise beginning to 
love them because we have begun to find them interesting. 
Our liking for them is not based on an absurd and im- 
possible effort to control our instinctive feelings but on a 
deep and sure reality, on the humanity with its divine 
possibilities which we have learned to see in them. 

The third principle which comes out of our discussions 
is that differences of race are differences within a funda- 
mental unity and are intended to minister to the fulfilment 
of a common social purpose. 

Differences need not divide ; they may enrich. St Paul 
made this clear in his illustration of the body. The body is 
constituted by the difference of its parts. Without its 
various members it would cease to be a body. No organ 
can claim superiority over another since all are necessary 
to the body, and the organs which might seem to have 
least influence are as indispensable as the rest. 

An illustration of the kind of place the world might be, 
if we chose to make it such, is furnished by the best type 
1 Josiah Royce, The Problem of Christianity , vol. i. p. 350. 


of school. The conception of a school as a society in which 
each boy, whatever his gifts, makes his own distinctive 
contribution to the common life and becomes an indis- 
pensable member of the society was worked out with 
remarkable success at Oundle by the late Dr F. W. 
Sanderson. Describing not merely an ideal but his actual 
experience as a headmaster for many years, he says, ‘ A boy 
who is taking his share in some technical work would be 
found to be an excellent worker in some one part of it : 
he might not be estimated high by the ordinary school 
standards, but his services could not be spared : so in making 
new groupings of forms for special service he would be 
promoted. ... It soon becomes clear that no boy can 
be dispensed with and that it is a risky thing for good and 
full service in a school, where such a variety of capacities 
is required, to reject a boy by the crude process of an 
entrance examination. Such experience abundantly shows 
that a community can find full use for all its members ; 
that in a large way every one is of equal value ; and that 
the duty of any community is to stretch all its powers 
towards giving each one the opportunity of experience 
and work.’ 1 And again he writes : ‘ All can be of service ; 
there is no one so poor that he cannot give service. Each 
individual can give service which he alone can give. In 
the best sense all are of equal service in the community.’ 2 

It is of course a far easier thing to realize this conception 
of human relations in the society of a school than in the 
larger world where powerful interests come into conflict 
and deep-rooted differences separate men from one another. 
But we are prevented even from making a serious attempt 
to apply it because our minds are held in bondage by false 

We saw in the preceding chapter that in the satisfac- 
tion of their physical needs men’s interests are competitive, 
but that human progress and civilization consist in the 
increasing subordination of these competitive interests to 
those which are non-competitive. A man’s claim to a share 
1 Sanderson of Oundle, pp. 342-3. 2 Ibid. p. 317. 



of material things is transformed when the claim is made 
in order that he may fulfil his part in a common task. 
That his claim should be satisfied is not his interest alone 
but the interest of all. When we learn to think of our 
fellow-men as co-workers in a common social purpose, we 
realize that all are necessary. Every difference becomes 
a source of enrichment. Each individual because of his 
uniqueness has something peculiar to himself that he alone 
can contribute to the good of the whole. Every race 
because of the difference in its biological inheritance and 
in its historical experiences can give something that can be 
got from no other source. 

Our supreme need therefore is a change of outlook. 
A truer conception of human society must take the place 
of the false ideas by which our minds are held in bondage. 
Our racial antipathies and hates and fears would dissolve 
if we learned to think of our fellow-men as partners in the 
biggest and most exhilarating of all games, the game man 
is playing against the universe. Instead of wasting our 
strength and resources in unprofitable conflict with our 
fellow-men we should unite our forces in combating 
want, disease, ignorance and sin which are the common 
foes of humanity and in obtaining that mastery over our 
environment which will provide the material basis for all 
for a progressive and civilized life. We should come to 
look on our fellow-men as comrades, potential or actual, in 
the most splendid of adventures — the establishment on 
earth of God’s kingdom of truth and righteousness, of love 
and goodness, of beauty and joy. 

From this new point of view the welfare and advance- 
ment of each is seen to be the concern of all. Humanity 
needs the best contributions which each individual or race 
can make. Nature has still locked in her bosom so many 
secrets, the discovery of which would alleviate the sufferings 
of mankind or assist its progress that the vast undeveloped 
intellectual resources of both West and East must be 
enlisted in the work of exploration. Western civilization 
is not something so perfect that western peoples can dis- 


pense with the new insights and perceptions which other 
races can bring. Nor can those other races do without the 
truths which western peoples have apprehended and the 
experience they have gained. 

In order that the different peoples may enrich the life 
of the world by the contribution which each is best fitted 
to make, each must have freedom to develop a distinctive 
life of its own. ‘ The day we all become alike,’ Mr Ramsay 
Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, said at 
a Welsh national banquet, £ is the last day of human 
progress. We belong to a great commonwealth, a far- 
flung commonwealth. That commonwealth is not English, 
Welsh or Scotch. It is a commonwealth which consists 
of a variety of peoples, each with a great past, each with 
a distinctive individuality, each with a mentality, a taste 
and inspiration, a guide for conduct, an ideal separate 
and distinct from those of the other races and peoples 
that compose that commonwealth. The strength of that 
commonwealth is its variety, its separate individualities ; 
and the man who ever tries to smooth out those differences 
is the man whose hand is lifted against the perpetuation 
and existence of that great commonwealth.’ 1 

It is not by cutting themselves off from their national 
traditions and denationalizing themselves that Englishmen, 
Scotsmen, Frenchmen, or Germans can best serve other 
peoples, but by incorporating and exemplifying what is 
best in their national heritage and contributing to the 
life of other peoples those insights, aptitudes and pro- 
ficiencies which they derive from their own rich tradition. 
Similarly what the world needs from other peoples is that 
each should develop a characteristic national culture of its 
own, which by its distinctive and unmatched excellences 
may enrich the common life of mankind. 

From this point of view it is of great moment that 
the special contribution of the African race should not 
be lost. There is a danger that under present conditions 
this may happen. It is a misfortune that the section 
1 The Times , March 3rd, 1924. 



of the African race which is on the whole most advanced 
should have had to grow up divorced from its native 
soil and inheriting only the traditions of another race, 
and that under present conditions European tutelage 
and guidance throughout the greater part of the African 
continent should be indispensable. In this lies a grave 
danger that the peculiar genius and soul of the African 
people may fail to find its proper expression for the 
enrichment of mankind. No one can doubt, as Mr 
Edgar Gardner Murphy has well said, that ‘ like the 
vast fecundities of the continent ’ from which the Negro 
comes, his culture ‘ holds within itself strange, un- 
measured possibilities of character and achievement. No 
one can believe, whether he be theist or fatalist or mate- 
rialist, that a racial type so old, so persistent, so numerous 
in its representation, so fundamentally distinctive and yet 
with so varied a territorial basis, is likely to pass out of 
human history without a far larger contribution than it 
has thus far made to the store of our common life and 
happiness.’ 1 Yet this rich contribution may be in large 
measure lost to the world unless a strong effort is made 
by Africans themselves and by those who for the present 
guide their development to conserve and foster the dis- 
tinctive qualities of the race. 

Viewed in relation to the common good, race and 
nationality, which when perverted to wrong purposes are 
the most potent causes of strife, are seen to be an indis- 
pensable means of promoting the highest spiritual develop- 
ment of mankind. 

In proportion as we succeed in subordinating competitive 
interests to a common social purpose honourable emulation 
takes the place of jealous rivalry. When that social 
purpose takes possession of my mind what I desire for my 
country is that its people should have, and deserve, the 
reputation of being just, honourable, chivalrous and 
magnanimous. In my contacts with other races it will be 
my aim by my conduct to do credit to my country. In 
1 E. G. Murphy, The Basis of Ascendancy, p. 78. 


this ambition I can be as British as I like and have no fear 
that my patriotism will alienate those of another race. 
And if an Indian or a Negro sets himself to outdo me in 
these qualities it will serve only to cement our friendship 
more firmly. In such rivalry every race may compete and 
victory will leave no bitterness. ‘ I count it a part of my 
good fortune,’ Dr Booker T. Washington tells us, ‘ to have 
been thrown, early in my life in Alabama, in contact with 
such a man as Captain Howard. After knowing him I said 
to myself ; “ If under the circumstances a white man can 
learn to be fair to my race instead of hating it, a black man 
ought to be able to return the compliment.” 51 ‘ It is 

now long ago,’ he says elsewhere, ‘ that I learned this lesson 
from General Armstrong, and resolved that I would permit 
no man, no matter what his colour might be, to narrow 
and degrade my soul by making me hate him.’ 2 Such 
emulation in magnanimity, if it were more common, 
would soon put a new face on many of our racial 

Within this region of experience, and nowhere else, we 
can give a satisfying meaning to equality. It is the equality 
of the body, in which every organ, however different, has 
its appropriate function and all are equally necessary. It 
is the equality of a team, in which every man, whether he 
be batsman or bowler, forward or back, plays not for 
himself but for the side and the victory is shared equally 
by all, no matter who makes the runs or scores the goals. 
It is the equality of a regiment transformed through the 
sharing of common dangers into a fellowship, in which the 
officers will do anything for their men and the men for 
their officers. It is the equality of the Kingdom of God 
in which every man according to his capacity does his 
utmost for the glory of God and the good of his fellow-men, 
and all know themselves to be brothers in this service. 
Only in the common service of a cause greater than 
ourselves shall we be able to discover the true meaning 

1 Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education , p. 57. 

2 Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery, p. 204. 



of equality. We must seek first the Kingdom of God if 
real solutions of our problems are to become possible. 

The conclusion to which our discussion has led is that 
the fundamental issues in racial relations are not ethnological 
or biological but ethical. Our difficulties do not arise 
primarily from the fact that differences exist. They are 
created by false ideas in our own minds. At bottom the 
question is one of attitude, and our attitude is determined 
by our ultimate values. Is our attitude towards other 
races to be repressive or constructive ? Is what we seek 
the exclusive advantage and domination of a part or the 
greatest good of the whole ? Are the facts, as we come to 
know them better, to be made an excuse for exploiting 
the weaknesses of mankind for our own advantage, or shall 
we find in a deeper understanding of human nature and of 
history new means of awakening in our fellow-men capacities 
now dormant and of helping them to enter into their 
heritage as children of God ? In the last resort what is at 
stake is whether the Christian view of the world is true. 

For those who believe that it is, the task is clear. We 
must purge our minds of error, and seek to win for ourselves 
and communicate to others a clearer view and deeper 
understanding of the purpose of the life of man. We have 
to bring about a change of mind. Immense and difficult 
as the task is, the forces on our side are greater than those 
that are against us. 

Nature itself lends support to our endeavour. The 
dependence of peoples on one another is part of reality. 
The interdependence of all life is a truth which biological 
science enforces with increasing emphasis. ‘ It is char- 
acteristic of the new biology,’ says Professor Thompson, 
‘ that it has set the idea of the correlation of organisms in 
the centre of its thinking. Nothing lives or dies to itself ; 
everything, as John Locke said, is a retainer to some other 
part of Nature.’ 1 In the life of man as it exists today 
the harmony is broken. Man’s task is consciously to 
restore it. In his discords and conflicts he is at variance 
1 The Quarterly Review, October 1923, pp. 216-17. 


with those deep laws of his being which unite the life of 
individuals and of peoples indissolubly with all other life. 
Only in the conscious creation of harmony can his nature 
find fulfilment. 

The forces of human nature are likewise on our side. 
The Christian ideal has the power to gather up into itself 
all the driving-force that resides in our inherited instincts. 
Professor Hocking in his Human Nature and its Remaking , 
has shown convincingly how in the service of this ideal 
our most powerful instincts do actually find their true 
interpretation and complete satisfaction. The instinct of 
pugnacity achieves its ultimate satisfaction in a valiant 
battle to establish justice and right and in the criticism 
and rectification of every perversion of them. The whole 
energies of the instinct of love may be sublimated and 
drained into the channel of an unselfish passion to serve 
mankind. Ambition too may find its complete and final 
satisfaction, as experience reveals more and more clearly 
that the only real and enduring power over our fellow-men 
is that which comes from serving them . 1 4 We need not 
obstruct, but press into our service,’ as another writer has 
said, 4 the passions of the soul ; we can fill our sails with 
the very winds and gales which threaten the shipwreck of 
our lives ; tap the resources of the lightning which ruth- 
lessly destroys, and turn its electric power into the driving- 
force of our enterprises .’ 2 

If our vision is true, we may take courage from the fact 
that it is the nature of an idea to communicate itself. A 
vision springing up in the hearts of men has the power to 
spread itself by contagion. Prophets have been the great 
creative forces in history. A passage in another of Professor 
Hocking’s books gives forcible expression to this truth of 
the creative power of an idea. 4 We can see that the type 
of power which we have called prophetic, unlike that power 
which Nietzsche celebrates, tends not to compete with 

1 W. E. Hocking, Human Nature and its Remaking , pp. 339-78. 
(Revised Edition, pp. 363-402.) 

2 J. Arthur Hadfield in The Spirit, edited by B. H. Streeter, p. 115. 



and destroy the like power in its neighbours, but rather to 
develop and to propagate it. As laughter begets laughter, 
and courage courage, passing from mind to mind and 
crystallizing a social group or a social world upon its own 
principle, so does the world-conquering temper of religion 
beget its like. No human attitude is more socially con- 
tagious than that of worship, except the practical attitude 
toward facts which comes out of worship : namely, enthusi- 
asm for suffering, conscious superiority to hostile facts of 
whatever sort or magnitude, knowledge of their absolute 
illusoriness, so far as they pretend finality — in a word 
the practical certitude of the prophet. When religion has 
thus acquired a clear-sighted and thorough contemptus 
muncLi , religion begins to be potent within this same world 
of facts : it was within the scope of the stoic to become 
impregnable, but the religious spirit finds itself more than 
impregnable — irresistible. The prophetic attitude begins 
at once to change facts, to make differences, to do work ; 
and its first work, is as I say, its social contagion : it begins 
to crystallize its environment, that is, to organize the social 
world upon its own principled 1 

All this is possible, because God is on our side. The 
powers with which our work is to be done are not our 
powers. They are the forces of eternal truth, righteous- 
ness and love, which may work through us. All that is 
divine in the world is there for us to use, or rather, if 
we will, to use us. Our lives may become the channels, 
through which its creative energies may pour. As St Paul 
put it when he made this great discovery, ‘ I live, yet not 
I, but Christ liveth in med 

1 W. E. Hocking, The Meaning of God in Human Experience , p. 518. 



TT'HE attempt was made in the last chapter to gain a 
clear idea of the principles which must guide us in the 
endeavour to deal with the difficult, grave and dangerous 
questions to which the relations between different races 
give rise. We have now to enquire how we may set to work 
practically to apply those principles, in order that we may 
do what in us lies to increase goodwill, promote human 
welfare and realize the purpose of God for the world. Five 
main lines of suggestion may be offered. 

First there is the conversion of our own minds. Moral 
reforms, however wide their sweep, have their origin in 
the insight, resolve and loyalty of individual men and 
women. The greatest contribution that we can make to 
the improvement of racial relations is that we ourselves 
should possess the mind of Christ. Through habitual 
communion with His words and Spirit our outlook must 
be increasingly transformed until we learn to see the man 
in every man and the service of the Kingdom of God 
becomes our master passion. Nothing will contribute 
more to the improvement of racial relations than the 
influence, largely unconscious, of individual men and 
women who diffuse a spirit of fair-mindedness, goodwill 
and friendliness, because they have lived in secret with 
divine truth, goodness and beauty. Such personalities are 
a creative force. Things tend to grow where their influence 
makes itself felt. 

Those who have this mind will find in the casual contacts 
of daily life plentiful occasions for its expression. A smile 
of sympathy, a kindly word, an act of courtesy to a stranger 
of another race may accomplish more than we dream. 




The relations between races are determined not by the 
actions of governments alone but by the personal contacts 
of multitudes of individuals. Those who are subject on 
the ground of race to social, political or economic dis- 
abilities have a special claim to courteous treatment. In 
these passing incidents of the daily round the Christian 
spirit has the opportunity of manifesting its creative 
power. ‘ To those round about us,’ Maeterlinck says in 
a striking passage, ‘ there happen incessant and countless 
adventures, whereof every one, it would seem, contains a 
germ of heroism ; but the adventure passes away, and 
heroic deed there is none. But when Jesus Christ met 
the Samaritan, met a few children, an adulterous woman, 
then did humanity rise three times in succession to the 
level of God.’ 1 

The Christian mind will make us welcome opportunities 
of allowing acquaintance with individuals belonging to 
another race to ripen into friendship. Friendship is the 
key to mutual understanding between races. So long as 
another race remains an abstraction, its needs, its attitudes, 
its hardships, its wrongs may leave me unmoved ; but 
things appear different when they belong or happen to 
my friend. Such friendships enlarge our outlook. They 
enable us to look out on the world through new windows. 
Those who have been privileged to count members of other 
races among their friends know how much poorer their 
lives would have been without this experience. 

The converted mind will also be zealous for justice. 
In judging of issues which arise between races it will seek 
to free itself from racial bias. It knows that God is no 
respecter of persons. It will wish to apply equal standards. 
In its independent and original search for truth it may find 
itself in opposition to prevailing opinion. Occasions may 
arise when loyalty to truth may compel a man to take sides 
against the majority of his own race or countrymen. 

It was pointed out in an earlier chapter how easily 
issues which in their origin and nature are not racial at 
1 M. Maeterlinck, Wisdom and Destiny , p. 28. 


all may become racial . 1 This inevitably takes place when 
division of opinion follows exclusively racial lines. If in 
an Indian city an Englishman is shot by an Indian or if, as 
at Amritsar, an English general in maintaining public order 
employs greater force than is needed and sacrifices many 
Indian lives, in neither case is the act necessarily racial even 
if racial hatred or prejudice is a contributory influence. 
It may in the one case be the act of a revolutionary which 
Indian moderate opinion no less than European condemns, 
and in the other a deplorable error of judgment in dealing 
with an emergency which, in the case of Amritsar, was 
censured by responsible authority. But if in the former 
case the European community acts independently and 
organizes an exclusively European protest, the issue by 
that very fact is given a racial colour which makes Indian 
denunciation of the crime more difficult ; and if in the 
latter instance language is used which suggests that Indian 
lives are held more cheaply than British, and if a large 
body of European opinion publicly defends the outrage, 
the mistake of an individual becomes a burning issue 
between the races. 

When Englishmen deplore the preaching of racial hatred 
by Indians, they are apt to overlook the strength of the 
instinct of racial solidarity on the British side. An eminent 
Indian once said to me that one of the chief barriers to 
mutual understanding between the races seemed to him 
to be the reluctance of most Englishmen to state 
publicly the sympathy with the Indian point of view on 
particular questions which they readily expressed in private 
conversation, and to dissociate themselves openly from 
utterances in the English press which entirely misrepre- 
sented their real views. He spoke in terms of the deepest 
regard, affection and admiration of a missionary, no longer 
living, who had always made it his practice to express 
publicly his disagreement when statements were made in 
the English press which seemed to him unjust to Indians. 

As issues become racial when the judgment is allowed 
1 P. 43- 



to be biassed by racial considerations, so the racial sting and 
bitterness will be eliminated from controversies in pro- 
portion as men on both sides have courage to set truth and 
justice above everything else and to pursue them without 
fear or favour. ‘ The path of the just is as a shining light,’ 
which more than any other has the power to dissipate the 
fogs of racial prejudice and suspicion. 

While the conversion of our own minds is the first 
step, it is only the starting point. The problems we have 
considered in previous chapters cannot be solved unless 
there is the right spirit ; but neither can they be solved 
by the right spirit alone. Knowledge and thought are 
likewise indispensable. This second line of effort must 
now receive our attention. 

It has been maintained that life becomes more humane, 
civilized and Christian in proportion as we learn to regard 
men as persons and not as pawns in a game. Yet it 
is impossible in order to realize this ideal to get rid of 
the complex organization of modern society. Its intricate 
machinery is indispensable for the maintenance of the 
present population of the world, and a return to simpler 
conditions could be achieved only by the sacrifice of 
millions of lives. We cannot go back. Our only hope is 
to make organization an efficient instrument for achieving 
humane and personal ends. 

Mr Walter Lippmann in his book Public Opinion has 
forcibly reminded us how many of the defects and failures 
in the control of public affairs may be traced to the fact 
that the picture in men’s minds by which their action is 
necessarily determined has so little correspondence with the 
actual reality. In a rural township, which was what the 
founders of the American Republic had all the time in view, 
everybody has a tolerable knowledge of everybody else’s 
affairs and a direct and personal interest in most of the things 
that concern the life of the community. But when the 
area is widened to the state, the nation and the world the 
individual can know only an infinitesimal fraction of the 
facts necessary for a sound judgment. 


The mental picture which most of us have even of our 
own country is apt to correspond very imperfectly with 
the reality. Mr Graham Wallas draws an amusing contrast 
between the idea of England as it exists in the minds 
respectively of a Labour M.P., an officer of the Guards 
and a High Church Bishop. For that idea, formed, it may 
be, in considerable part by hundreds of leading articles in 
the Daily Herald or Morning Post or Church Times, each 
‘ is prepared to vote or fight or agitate, on the subconscious 
and unexamined assumption that his idea . . . is a trust- 
worthy equivalent for the real England which his action 
will effect.’ 1 In regard to a foreign people the lack of 
correspondence between the picture in our minds and the 
actual reality is greater still. The idea which the ordinary 
untravelled Englishman has of India is, generally speaking, | 
a compound of hazy recollections of history lessons at school, 
scraps of information supplied by friends who have been 
in India as civilians, merchants, officers or privates, im- 
pressions left by one or two casual meetings with individual 
Indians and ideas picked up from articles in the monthly 
and weekly reviews and the daily press. Unfortunately it 
sometimes happens that the picture in the mind of a states- 
man who has to take decisions is only in a slight degree 
a more accurate transcript of reality. 

When realities are ignored, they take their revenge. 
Things cannot go right when violence is done to the facts. 
Our controversies and quarrels are often due as much to 
defects of the head as to faults of the heart. There is far 
more goodwill in the world than has the chance to express 
itself. The difference between the higher and lower motives, 
as Mr Lippmann points out, is by no means always a differ- 
ence between altruism and selfishness. ‘ It is a difference 
between acting for easily understood aims, and for aims 
that are obscure and vague. Exhort a man to make more 
profit than his neighbour, and he knows at what to aim. 
Exhort him to render more social service, and how is he 
to be certain what service is social ? What is the test, what 
1 Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, p. 8i. 


23 7 

is the measure ? A subjective feeling, somebody’s opinion. 
Tell a man in time of peace that he ought to serve his country 
and you have uttered a pious platitude. Tell him in time 
of war, and the word service has a meaning ; it is a number 
of concrete acts, enlistment, or buying bonds, or saving 
food, or working for a dollar a year, and each one of these 
. services he sees definitely as part of a concrete purpose to 
put at the front an army larger and better armed, than 
; the enemy’s .’ 1 

If the goodwill which exists is to have an opportunity 
of asserting itself, errors, inexactitudes, misconceptions and 
vagueness must be got rid of. Plans and arrangements 
. must be based on things as they are and not as they are 
supposed to be. It is necessary that we should transcend 
our casual experiences and our prejudices by ‘ inventing, 
creating and organizing a machinery of knowledge .’ 2 
1 Without this there is little hope of solving the problems 
of industry, of government or of international and inter- 
i racial relations. It is vain to look for understanding when 
illusions are cherished on both sides and the pictures in 
men’s minds by which their feelings, judgments and actions 
■ are determined have little or no correspondence with reality. 
Laborious and patient study of the facts and the severe 
discipline of thought are an essential part of our Christian 
task, if we are to banish error and falsehood from men’s 
minds and bring within their reach the truth that alone 
can make them free. 

The Church has been charged, as we saw in an earlier 
chapter , 3 with failure to make its principles effective in the 
life of the world today. The failure may have its partial 
explanation in the fact that the Church has not seriously 
1 undertaken the intellectual effort necessary to relate its 
conception of life to the actual conditions of modern society. 
Its teaching in regard to Christian duty is not substantially 
j different from what it was when the conditions of life were 
far simpler and the relations of individuals were mainly 

1 Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion , p. 390. 

2 Ibid. p. 365. 3 Pp. 16-17. 


with other individuals. The mind of the Church has 
occupied itself with philosophical and theological problems, 
with the text and contents of the scriptures and with the 
history of its own past. But it has not set itself to grapple 
in earnest with the complexities of modern life and the 
problems which they create for the Christian conscience. 
It has consequently been unable to give to men the moral 
guidance that they need. It has often been impotent 
not because it was without an ideal but because it lacked 
knowledge of the conditions which the ideal must transform. 
One of two things was consequently bound to happen. 
The result of this has been either that the voice of the 
Church has been silent in regard to these matters and a 
large part of human life left without the challenge and the 
transforming influence of the Christian ideal, or that the 
august authority of Christian principle has been claimed by 
well-meaning but ill-informed exponents of Christianity for 
courses of action which competent opinion knew to be 
irreconcilable with the facts, and the Christian name brought 
into discredit. The Conference on Christian Politics, 
Economics and Citizenship held at Birmingham in April 
1924 and the projected Conference in America on the 
Christian Way of Life are signs, among many others, that 
efforts are being made to remedy the shortcomings of the 

Christian guidance in racial questions can be effective 
only if it is based on knowledge. How far the Church 
itself should provide machinery for the study of the facts 
is a difficult question. The organization of a machinery 
of knowledge is clearly a function of the state. But the 
motive of service should lead Christians to take an enthusi- 
astic part in such an undertaking and the Church must have 
some means of making use of the best available knowledge 
when the necessity arises of rallying Christian public opinion 
in support of a course of action which appears to be plainly 
demanded by the Christian conscience. 

Interesting experiments have been made in the past few 
years by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ 



in America. This body representing the great majority 
of Protestant denominations, appointed in 1914 a Com- 
mission on Relations with Japan which later became a 
Commission on Oriental Relations. The Federal Council 
also set up a Commission on International Justice and Good- 
will. Under the leadership of Dr Sidney L. Gulick, the 
able secretary of both commissions, investigations have 
been undertaken of the problems of Japanese immigration 
in the United States, missions to express goodwill and to 
discuss international difficulties have from time to time been 
sent to the Far East and a vigorous campaign has been 
carried on in the American Churches to educate Christian 
public opinion. The immense moral force represented 
by the Christian Churches in America is thus being rallied 
to the cause of international understanding and goodwill, 
while at the same time a serious intellectual effort is being 
made to understand the issues involved and to ascertain the 
most hopeful means of dealing with them. 

Another experiment of great interest is an investigation 
at present being undertaken jointly by the Institute of 
Social and Religious Research, which has its headquarters 
in New York, and the people of the Pacific Coast of the 
United States and of Canada, with a view to ascertaining 
the facts regarding oriental immigrants and their relations 
with the American and Canadian communities. A research 
director and administrative director have been appointed 
and the enquiry is estimated to cost $55,000. Its aim is 
to secure and publish facts. £ It seeks to impose no 
program, advocates no specific policy and champions no 
special interest.’ 1 

It is plain from what has been said that the effort 
to improve the relations between races involves a double 
task. We have to take account of both the personal and 
the impersonal aspects of human life. We must continually 
strive in our contacts with other races to be men among 
men. We must not allow ourselves to become so absorbed 

1 The administrative director is J. Merle Davis, 553 Phelan Building, 
San Francisco, California. 


in great projects or general interests as to lose the human 
touch. Dr Schweitzer is right when he reminds us that 
the Christian reverence for life ‘ does not allow the scholar 
to live for his science alone, even if he is very useful to 
the community in so doing. It does not permit the artist 
to exist only for his art, even if he gives inspiration to many 
by its means. It refuses to let the business man imagine 
that he fulfils all legitimate demands in the course of his 
business activities. It demands from all that they should 
sacrifice a portion of their own lives for others.’ 1 At the 
same time, if we are to serve our fellow-men effectively 
in the conditions of modern life, it is necessary through 
scientific knowledge and the increasing use of quantitative 
methods to gain control of our environment in order that 
we may subdue it to humane ends. Into this indispensable 
task of modern civilization Christians may help to infuse 
the right spirit — the spirit which seeks truth, is afraid 
of no facts, harbours no prejudices, condones no injustice 
and sets the common good above all sectional and selfish 

A third way in which we may contribute to the better- 
ment of racial relations is by the encouragement of inter- 
racial co-operation in counsel and in action. While the 
accumulation, sifting and presentation of facts is largely 
a matter of adequate machinery, the interpretation of the 
facts and the determination of the action to be based on 
them must be a joint undertaking. Only when the two 
sides sit down together to study the same body of facts 
does it become possible to arrive at a common mind. If 
one of the two points of view is unrepresented, an element 
essential to a right decision is lacking. 

We shall not attempt here to follow out the application 
of this principle to conferences between governments. 
The establishment of the League of Nations has initiated 
a new era in international affairs by providing permanent 
machinery for bringing the different nations together to 
consult about matters of common interest and to consider 
1 Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics , p. 269. 



international problems in relation to the good of humanity 
as a whole. Its secretariat supplies the means of collecting 
information on the subjects under discussion and of pre- 
senting it not with a view to supporting the contentions 
of interested parties but from an impartial and unbiassed 
standpoint. Our primary concern here is with the con- 
tribution of individual citizens to the promotion of a better 
understanding between races. 

The plan of bringing representatives of different races 
together to consider in common the problems involved in 
their mutual relations has been developed with much 
promise recently in the United States. The most im- 
portant among several efforts which have been made since 
the war to improve racial relations in America has been 
the organization in 1918 by a group of Southern whites 
of the Commission on Inter-racial Co-operation. The 
objects of the Commission were stated to be — to study 
the Negro problem and to discover what the Negro 
wanted ; to agree upon a minimum programme behind 
which intelligent white people might be rallied ; to line 
up white people in support of this programme ; to enlist 
in its support at the same time the leaders of the 
Negro race ; to take the necessary steps to make the 
programme effective ; and to secure co-operation on the 
part of all agencies working on this field and to render 
assistance to them in the matter of better team work and 
to avoid duplication. 

The Commission includes white and Negro leaders 
chosen from thirteen Southern States. Among these are 
business men, university presidents, leading members of 
the Bar and leaders in the great denominations, as well as 
certain outstanding men who for years have given their 
lives to Negro work. It was recognized that nothing 
substantial can be done for the improvement of conditions 
until the white people’s leaders are won to the programme. 
Therefore at first the Commission did not include Negroes 
though these were called in for consultation. In February 
1920 it was decided by unanimous vote to invite repre- 


sentative leaders of the Negroes to be members of the 
Commission, and this was done. 

Strong State committees have been formed in each 
of the thirteen States. These State committees include 
outstanding leaders of both races. But the real foundation 
of the work is in the small inter-racial committees formed in 
more than eight hundred of the nearly thirteen hundred 
counties in the Southern States. Serving on these com- 
mittees are the best white and Negro citizens who have 
undertaken by conference and co-operation to correct 
injustices, to improve educational and living conditions 
and work together by peaceful methods for justice and 
racial goodwill. The significance of these committees can 
be understood only by those who know how wide a gulf 
has in the past existed between white and coloured men and 
how little they have understood or co-operated with one 

The paid officials of the Commission are one white 
man, one Negro and one woman, besides office staff. It is 
intended that there should be a minimum of one full-time 
inter-racial secretary from each of the two races in each 
of the thirteen States. 

In November 1920 representative Southern women 
were added to the Commission. The active co-operation 
of women is one of the most important and encouraging 
features of the movement. It often happens that the 
attitude of women is one of the chief obstacles to good 
relations between races. The remarkable interest shown by 
American women in the improvement of racial relations 
gives promise of a real advance. The women members 
of the State Committees on Race Co-operation in Georgia, 
Alabama, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana have passed strong 
resolutions protesting against lynching and the ‘ double 
standard of morals in regard to race as well as sex ’ and 
asking for the equal protection of all women. 

An important move on somewhat similar lines has 
recently been made in South Africa. In September 1923 


2 43 

a remarkably representative conference was called by the 
Dutch Reformed Church, at which, for the first time, 
Natives were invited to deliberate along with Europeans 
on matters affecting Native affairs, both races participating 
in the discussions on equal terms. The subjects discussed 
included Native education, the Urban Areas Act, the land 
question, segregation and political rights for Natives. The 
striking innovation was the discussion of these subjects by 
whites and Natives, meeting together. 

A similar plan of forming groups in which opposite 
points of view were represented was adopted in South 
Africa after the Boer War, when Dutch and British were 
brought together to study questions of public policy, and 
these groups, Mr Curtis tells us, 4 contributed to the 
realization 3 of the Union of South Africa, 4 a project which 
many of those who best knew the country had deemed to 
be impossible.’ It was his hope that it might have been 
possible to form similar groups representing both races and 
both officials and non-officials in India, where 4 men . . . 
whose differences lie in words rather than in things are 
kept apart by a cloud of misapprehension ’ — a cloud that 
is pierced when individuals are brought together by friend- 
ship and mutual esteem . 1 

Co-operation in counsel merges insensibly into co- 
operation in action. There is no room here even to 
enumerate the many forms of international co-operation in 
which different races are brought together in constructive 
effort, such as co-operation in scientific study, in education, 
in medical research and service, in Red Cross work, in 
welfare and social work of various kinds and in the Boy Scouts 
and Girl Guides movements. The last-named movements 
have already a membership of two millions in different 
countries and are uniting the younger generation in an 
international brotherhood. Attention may also be called 
to the international clubs which have been formed in a 
number of places both in the West and in the East. An 
International Fellowship, whose purposes are mainly social, 

1 L. Curtis, Dyarchy, pp. 39, xxxiv. 


recently formed in Madras has made a promising start. 
The membership includes Indians and British, officials and 

A fourth line of activity is the formation of a right 
public opinion on racial questions. The two most powerful 
agencies for achieving this purpose are education and the 

The immense contribution of education lies far less in 
the introduction of material bearing on racial relations into 
the curriculum or in formal teaching of any kind than in 
the power of education to mould character and to create 
an attitude towards life. Reverence for life, an interest 
in persons as persons, the spirit of justice and fair play, 
sympathy with one’s fellow-men and the desire to serve 
them and the purpose to seek first the Kingdom of God 
are the qualities which, expressed in the lives of individuals, 
promote racial understanding and goodwill. If the home 
and the school succeed in forming these dispositions, those 
who possess them will not be found wanting when the time 
comes to apply habits acquired in a more restricted environ- 
ment to wider relations. An ounce of humour, of human 
understanding, of the sense of fair play, of the instinct for 
dealing with men may often be worth more than pounds 
of admirable racial theory. 

While the formation of right habits and the implanting 
of true ideals is the fundamental thing in the work of 
the school, much may be done through the curriculum, 
and especially in the teaching of geography and history, 
to create a conception of the unity of mankind and the 
dependence of peoples on one another. This matter is 
happily engaging the attention of teachers in many countries. 
History, it is increasingly recognized, should be taught not 
as an unrelated record of national achievements but as 
part of the great story of human progress. Mr H. G. Wells 
has rendered an immense public service by teaching people 
through his Outline of History to think of the growth and 
progress of mankind as a unity. c The key to the study 
of history,’ as Mr Gooch has said, ‘ is the unity of civiliza- 



tion. . . . Civilization is a co-operative achievement. 

The civilization which we praise so highly is the result 
of the co-operative efforts of men and women, known and 
unknown, through all the ages, belonging to all countries 
and all races and all creeds. It is the most wonderful 
thing that the world has ever seen, and it is the result of 
the common efforts of the human family.’ 1 

The power of the press to guide and restrain or to mis- 
lead and inflame public opinion is enormous. By the daily 
repetition of certain ideas to millions of readers, it can 
through the influence of suggestion rather than by argument 
bring about a state of feeling which statesmen cannot afford 
to disregard. It can still more effectively control public 
opinion by the selection of the facts which it publishes 
or which it prints in a prominent place. The dangerous 
nature of such power, if it is abused, in creating misunder- 
standing and friction between peoples, has been pointed 
out by Lord Bryce. ‘ Press exaggerations or misrepresenta- 
tions,’ he says, ‘ are especially mischievous in questions 
arising with foreign countries. Where the controversy is 
domestic, the citizens know more about it, and the activity 
of the opposing parties may be relied on to bring out the 
facts and provide answers to mendacious statements and 
fallacious arguments. This may not happen where a foreign 
country is concerned, whose case no political party nor 
any newspaper need feel bound (except from purely con- 
scientious motives) to state and argue. To do so is usually 
unpopular, and will be stigmatized as unpatriotic. Here, 
accordingly, the policy of suppressing or misrepresenting 
what may be said on behalf of the foreign case commends 
itself to the journal which thinks first of its own business 
interests. Newspapers have in all countries done much to 
create ill feeling and bring war nearer. In each country 
they say the worst they can of the other country, and these 
reproaches, copied by the newspapers of the other, intensify 
distrust and enmity. All this is done not, as sometimes 
alleged, because newspapers gain by wars, for that is not 
1 J. H. Whitchouse and G. P. Gooch, Wider Aspects of Education, pp. 1-2. 


always the case, since their expenditure also increases, 
but because it is easier and more profitable to take the 
path of least resistance. The average man’s patriotism, or 
at least his passion, is aroused. It is comforting to be told 
that the merits are all on his side ; nor can there ever be 
too many reasons for hating the foreigner.’ 1 

Those who control the press are responsible to no 
one for the use they make of this enormous power. A 
newspaper cannot be called to account for suppressing or 
falsifying the truth except when direct injury is done to 
an individual or corporate body. The high standard of 
fairness, courtesy and public spirit maintained by the best 
newspapers in these circumstances is greatly to their credit. 
Unfortunately there are many newspapers in which 
these standards are not followed. There are few national 
interests of greater importance than the existence of a 
press which without bias, fear or favour will tell the truth. 
When the people have no access to the real facts they 
become ‘ the inevitable victims of agitation and propa- 
ganda. . . . Deprived of any trustworthy means of knowing 
what is really going on, since everything is on the plane of 
assertion and propaganda, they believe whatever fits most 
comfortably with their prepossessions.’ 2 Honest journalism 
is under modern conditions one of the most valuable and 
effective forms of public service. 

Finally, no greater contribution can be made to the 
promotion of racial understanding and goodwill than the 
making known of the Christian Gospel, which by revealing 
the character and purpose of God gives to all endeavours 
to establish right relations between men an unassailable 
foundation in the eternal order ; which in the Cross shows 
us love and sacrifice as belonging to the life of God Himself ; 
which redeems us from the world and raises us above it, 
and at the same time sends us back into it to live and work 
and serve in the power of an endless life ; and which in 
teaching us that all that we are, and have is God’s gift cuts 

1 James Bryce, Modern Democracies, vol. i. pp. 1 14.-5. 

2 Walter Lippmann, Liberty and the News, pp. 54-5. 



away every ground of superiority and pride and makes 
possible a real brotherhood on the basis of our common 
relation to God. 

Historically, the Christian missionary movement, not- 
withstanding its failures, mistakes and shortcomings, has 
been one of the chief forces in bringing about understanding 
between different races. It has helped to reveal to Asiatic 
and African peoples the higher side of western civilization. 
While it has not wholly escaped the contagion of the 
imperialistic and crusading temper, it has in contrast with 
the egoistic impulses and aims of western nations exhibited 
an unselfish desire to help and serve. Mission hospitals 
have furnished a signal example of Christian charity. 
Christian missions have made notable contributions to the 
education of the peoples of Asia ; in the African continent, 
excepting the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, 
practically all the education that the native populations 
have had they have received in missionary schools. In 
hundreds of Christian schools and colleges in both continents 
western teachers have come into intimate relations with their 
pupils of other races and formed bonds of friendship which 
have lasted through life. Missionaries have made large 
contributions to western knowledge of the languages, 
thought and customs of other peoples. Through mis- 
sionary work hundreds of thousands of individuals belonging 
to other races have come to know personally white men 
whom they can trust. 

New conditions call for changes in the missionary 
outlook and in missionary methods. Leadership must pass 
more and more into the hands of the growing Christian 
Churches. But the call to the disinterested service of other- 
peoples is as insistent as ever. Such positive service is 
the most powerful counteractive of the disintegrating 
and estranging forces of national selfishness. So long as 
men believe in the Incarnation those will be found who 
esteem it their joy and privilege to spend their lives in 
ministering to others, regardless of differences of nationality 
and race. 



/^NUR discussions have made plain that there is no 
panacea for the evils from which humanity is suffer- 
ing. There is no short-cut to success. 

No easy hopes or lies 
Shall bring us to our goal, 

But iron sacrifice 
Of body, will and soul. 

There can be no escape from the labour of patient investiga- 
tion and the discipline of hard thinking. Things are never 
settled until they are settled right. 

Racial problems, as we have seen, are to a large 
extent social, political and economic problems. So long as 
economic standards in different parts of the world remain 
at very different levels occasions of conflict will arise. 
While population presses on the means of subsistence and 
wealth is unequally distributed, grounds will remain for 
rivalry between race and race. So long as power is un- 
equally shared, those who exercise it will be tempted to 
abuse it and those who are governed will rebel against 
the bitterness of the yoke. The adjustment of relations 
between the races is at bottom the problem of bringing 
into existence a world society permeated by the spirit of 
justice, sympathy and goodwill. 

Each summit to which humanity climbs with painful 
toil discloses new heights beyond. Such is the splendid 
adventure of life. The great achievements of the human 
race are the work not of one but of successive generations. 
‘ Men who look to gather where they sow,’ it was said in 
a paper written shortly after the war, ‘ may grow greens for 



the pot or grain for the oven. Forests spring from the 
labour of those who will never feast in the halls roofed by 
their beams. Not in vain has the earth been ploughed in 
this war and the furrows sown with the noblest of seeds. 
Generations must live and die ere the strong and enduring 
growth is ripe for the axe, and others must come and go 
or ever the beams are hewn and joined of that final abode 
where all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues shall 
dwell together as one.’ 1 

Is all that is left us, then, to work for a distant consumma- 
tion which we ourselves can never expect to see on earth, 
to look forward to some far-off divine event to which 
creation is slowly moving but to which in our lifetime we 
cannot hope to attain ? By no means. While the Kingdom 
of Heaven in its perfected form lies hidden in the future, it 
is also partially present here and now. As an old mediaeval 
castle or ancient city wall in a modern town or the 
formularies and procedure of our courts of law bear 
witness to the survival in our twentieth century of the 
creations and practices of a vanished age, so in our present 
life we may find anticipations, premonitions and fore- 
tastes of the better world to come. To the discords and 
antagonisms by which the world today is distracted we 
may oppose not merely our hopes, our aspirations, our 
endeavours, but also a solid reality and actual experience. 
The nature of this reality and this experience may fittingly 
engage our attention in this final chapter of our study. 

A human fellowship in which the estranging differences 
of race are completely transcended is not merely an ideal 
to be worked for in the future but an actual present 
experience. It is found in the region of art, which knows 
no bounds of race, and in the field of science. Scientific 
workers who are animated by a disinterested love of truth 
and the desire to further human progress know themselves 
to be members of a universal community that entirely 
transcends race. Who cares to what race a man belongs 
who finds a cure for cancer or for any of the other ills 
1 The Round Table , September 1920, p. 755. 


from which humanity suffers, or who unlocks some new 
treasure-house of nature that will add to the well-being 
and happiness of mankind ? 

Similarly, when men find themselves in the presence of 
some pressing danger, superficial differences are for the 
time lost sight of amid the realities of their common 
humanity. The human qualities of courage, endurance, 
faithfulness are in a real emergency a bond that makes 
differences of race seem of no account. Kipling has 
embodied this truth in his Ballad of East and West , and 
pointed the moral of his tale in the familiar lines, 

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth 
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the 

ends of the earth. 

A story illustrative of the same experience is told in 
a recently published article on Shakespeare and the Zulu 
by Sir Frank Benson. 

‘ A British officer had been sent forward in some fighting 
with the Zulus leading a contingent of men. The Zulus 
sent out a messenger of peace. By an unhappy blunder 
the British outposts shot him. The British officer was 
greatly distressed. So he handed over the contingent to 
the second in command, and walked straight out, unarmed, 
to the Zulu lines. He was led to the chief. 

‘ “ I have come,” he said, “ to give myself up because we 
shot your peace messenger by mistake. It is a thing brave 
warriors never do. I am very sorry. To make amends 
I place my life in your hands ; do with me as you will.” 

‘ The Zulu warrior chief was silent for a moment, then 
he said : “ You are a man, and your people are men, 
and the sons of men ; we too are men. We will make 
peace.” ’ 

‘ It is in such a scene as that,’ is Sir Frank Benson’s apt 
comment, 4 where the fundamental unity of men of courage 
comes out, that we get a glimpse into the reason why 
Shakespeare, who reveals just these qualities, appeals to 
them out in that land of adventure. There is in Shake- 


speare an idea of citizenship, of feeling for the essential 
man, that transcends all race values.’ 1 

The same sense of comradeship is found in greater or 
less degree wherever men engage in a common task that 
calls forth their devotion and taxes their powers. Lesser 
differences are forgotten in the unifying force of a common 
purpose. In a battle with plague in India or with famine 
in China no one asks whether a volunteer is Indian or 
Chinese or British or American ; the worth of a man is 
his capacity to help. When men are in earnest about 
the fight with disease or ignorance, every man who can 
strike an effective blow for the right cause is a welcome ally. 
Teachers when they meet in an international gathering 
are aware of their fellowship in a common task on behalf 
of humanity. A similar sense of fellowship transcending 
differences of nationality and race is a common experience 
in international meetings to further humanitarian, social 
or religious ends. 

When this experience comes to men for the first time 
it sometimes breaks on them as a revelation and opens up 
an altogether new world. I remember being present at a 
gathering in India at which there was an Indian to whom 
this kind of fellowship was entirely new. Towards the 
close of the conference he rose up and said with an earnest- 
ness and intensity of feeling which made a deep impression, 
‘ We have got here the thing that above all else Asia needs. 
We have been together for five days, Indians, British, 
Americans, and no one has been conscious of the smallest 
difference. We have been a band of brothers. This is 
what Asia is seeking, what Asia must have, what we must 
give to her.’ It has often been my privilege to parti- 
cipate in groups in which Europeans or Americans were 
associated with Chinese or Indians or Negroes and all 
differences of race were forgotten, and many others have 
had similar experiences. 

It is, then, a fact of human experience that the opposi- 
tions of race, which are so disquieting and menacing in 
1 Outward Bound , October 1923, p. 3. 


the life of the world today, may be transcended in loyalty 
to a common purpose. Those who devote themselves to 
ends which are not merely national but human do in fact 
find comrades in their task among those who belong to other 
nations and other races. In the midst of the national 
antagonisms and rivalries of the world today, this com- 
munity and co-operation of kindred minds actually exists 
as the promise and premonition of a better day. We have 
not to create something new. We have only to extend 
and deepen what is already here. 

There is in the world, expressing itself in a variety 
of forms and in many partial ways, a real fellowship of 
men of goodwill. £ The loyal,’ as Professor Royce says, ‘ are, 
in ideal, essentially kin. If they grow really wise, they 
observe this fact. The spirit that loves the community 
learns to prize itself as a spirit that, in all who are 
dominated by it, is essentially one, despite the variety of 
special causes, of nationalities, or of customs.’ 1 

When we begin to reflect seriously, however, about 
this existing reality of human fellowship, we are driven 
to recognize that if it is merely something that grows 
out of our own desires and purposes its value cannot be 
very great. Unless there is something in the heart of the 
universe that corresponds with and supports these purposes 
and loyalties they can be only foam on the waves of time. 
As we saw in an earlier chapter, it is not easy to main- 
tain human values against the attacks of naturalism and 
pessimism unless we believe that they are not merely our 
values but also God’s. 2 

For Christians the ideals which they seek to realize 
are not of their own making. They are the expression of 
a reality to which their eyes have been opened. Justice, 
for instance, is not something we create but something 
which we increasingly apprehend. The good is not first 
and foremost something that we achieve but something 
existing independently of us in the world of reality, 

1 Josiah Royce, The Problem of Christianity, vol. i. p. 71. 

2 Pp. 19-21. 


in which we are permitted to participate. If justice and 
goodness belong to the nature of eternal reality it is 
natural that they should manifest themselves in the world 
of time. In Jesus Christ they have found a complete and 
satisfying manifestation. In the striking language of Paul, 
in Him all the promises of God — all the best and highest 
that we can imagine and hope for — are ‘ yea ’ ; they have 
been made real and actual before our eyes. 

The fellowship of those who are dedicated to the 
service of mankind not only needs the assurance that the 
ultimate meaning and the vital forces of the universe are on 
its side but is also under the necessity of drawing con- 
tinually fresh life, strength and inspiration from the unseen 
and eternal order. Without this the fellowship is lacking 
in depth. Our powers become rapidly exhausted in our 
work. All profound thought has recognized that if we 
occupy ourselves exclusively with the world, even for the 
purpose of serving it, we become worldly, superficial, unreal 
and ineffective. If we are to serve the world we must 
pass beyond the world. It is only when we can leave 
our pre-occupation with ourselves and our neighbours and 
our tasks, and in silence and worship hold communion with 
the unseen and the eternal, that we can experience the 
inward renewal and rebirth which are necessary to make 
our labours fruitful and truly creative. Religion by lifting 
ministry up into worship opens up infinite horizons and 
inexhaustible depths. In Christianity, it has been pointed 
out, c personal ministration ’ has never been ‘ allowed to 
shrink to the level of purely objective and useful service. 
The cup of cold water is given “ in the Name ” of some- 
thing believed to be of cosmic importance.’ 1 

Reflexion about the fellowship of men of goodwill, 
which we have recognized to be a reality actually existing 
in the world today, thus leads on naturally to the deeper 
conception and reality of the Church of Christ. The 
society which Christ founded was just such a fellowship as 

1 W. F,. Hocking, Human Nature and its Remaking, p. 368. (Revised 
Edition, p. 391.) 


we have been considering, in which all natural differences 
are transcended in loyalty to a common purpose. He 
established a new bond of union, independent of race or 
class or sex, when He declared that ‘ whosoever shall do 
the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my 
brother and sister and mother.’ The new basis of associa- 
tion is a religious basis. It rests on a conviction about God 
and an experience of Him. Being based on a spiritual 
relation of men to God it is a bond more real and more 
enduring than any ties of blood or natural association, 
than family or kinship or race or nationality or state. It is 
a fellowship of those who are dedicated to doing the will 
of God, which in the life of Christ we have seen to be the 
conquest of evil and the redemption of human life, and who 
find the power to accomplish these tasks not in themselves 
but in God. 

What I should like to say, therefore, as the sum 
and crown of all that has gone before is that the Church 
of Christ is the answer to the problems we have been 
considering in this book. To this conclusion I have been 
irresistibly driven as I have studied these problems in the 
light of the Christian faith. Yet without the sacrifice 
of intellectual sincerity I cannot unreservedly make this 
affirmation. I wanted to take ‘ The Church ’ as the 
title of this concluding chapter. But I realized that the 
title would suggest to many readers something different 
from the real content of the chapter. The kind of Church 
that can provide an answer to the problems with which 
we have been dealing is very different from what many 
people understand by the Church. 

So strong is the sense of shortcoming among many 
who belong to the Church and so keen the disappointment 
among some who are outside at its failure to exert a deeper 
moral influence on the life of our time, that the tendency 
at the present day is perhaps rather to exaggerate than 
to ignore the faults and imperfections of the Christian 
Churches. The criticism brought against them both from 
within and from without is that they have fallen far 


short of the ideals which they themselves have been the 
principal agents in teaching the conscience of mankind to 
approve. It is often those who are impatient to see a 
more Christian order established who are most critical of 
organized Christianity. Yet, whatever their shortcomings, if 
the Christian Churches were to be removed, a moral force 
of incalculable value would disappear from the world. 
However lacking they may at times have been in moral 
originality or insight, it is on their support that humani- 
tarian movements have had largely to depend. A typical 
illustration is furnished by an incident which took place 
in America a few years ago. When famine occurred 
in China with the prospect of many millions dying from 
starvation it was decided to organize a national effort 
of relief in the United States. When those who had 
organized the Victory Loans during the war were called 
into consultation they pointed out that it would take at 
least three months to get the machinery of a national 
campaign in working order and that by that time the 
relief would come too late. It was decided accordingly 
to turn the whole matter over to the Christian Churches, 
which had the necessary machinery already in existence, 
since, as one of the leaders of the national committee 
remarked, ‘ we all know that the money will come from 
those sources anyway.’ Such illustrations might be multi- 
plied. Moral causes find their principal support among 
the professed followers of Christ. Again, one might point 
in illustration to the disinterested service rendered to the 
peoples of Asia and Africa by Christian educational and 
medical missions. While the obligations of trusteeship in 
the government of subject peoples have now won general 
recognition, it is a striking fact that practically all the 
education which the African peoples have received up 
to the present they have had from the hands of the 
Christian Church. 

Yet while all this is true, it is true also that we cannot 
point triumphantly to the Christian society as a signal 
example of a fellowship in which all lesser differences are 


transcended in loyalty to a common purpose. No fellow- 
ship should be so strong and living and rich as that of those 
who having seen the purpose of God revealed in Jesus 
Christ are dedicated to its fulfilment. But, as Bishop 
Gore has said, while ‘ Christianity as it has appeared 
in European society might be commonly regarded as 
a dogmatic system, true or false, or as a system of 
ecclesiastical government to be submitted to for the sake of 
ultimate salvation, or as a national system to be more or 
less conformed to for the general good, it certainly has not 
appeared as the organized life of a brotherhood so startling 
from the point of view of ordinary human selfishness 
that, even if it excited keen hostility it must at any rate 
arrest attention as a bright light in a dark place ; it 
certainly has not appeared as something which could 
purify society like salt, by its distinctive and emphatic 
savour, nor as something clearly in view and distinct in 
outline like “ a city set on a hill.” ’ 1 

The ultimate ground of the shortcomings of the Church 
is that it has lost in a large measure the missionary spirit. 

It has forgotten that it exists not for its own sake but for 
the sake of the world. Christianity is a missionary religion 
or it is nothing. It is in its essential nature a mission, a 
divine sending. ‘ As the Father hath sent Me,’ Christ 
said, c even so send I you.’ Christians are in the world to 
transform it in accordance with the purpose of God. 

The nineteenth century did indeed witness a great 
missionary revival within the Church. But, while the mis- 
sionary movement has accomplished much, the missionary 
idea remained incomplete. The tendency was to conceive 
of human life as extended geographically in space. The 
aim was to bring the Christian Gospel within the reach 
of every person on the surface of the globe. It was not 
sufficiently recognized that the Christian Gospel is not { 
only for every man but has to do with the whole of man’s 
life. While the forces of the Church pressed forward into 
unoccupied fields and opened up new continents, many 
1 Bishop Gore, Christianity applied to the Life oj Men and of Nations, p. 35. 


j who were engaged in this task left out of view the new 
worlds created by the modern industrial system and inter- 
national relations and scientific knowledge, and failed to 
recognize that in them just as much as in China or Africa 
the Christian witness has to be borne. The missionary 
adventure is a bigger thing than the nineteenth century 
dreamed. Just as the foreign missionary movement was 
undoubtedly one of the principal means of quickening the 
life of the Church, so response to the larger call in this 
present century may be expected to lead to a revival of 
Christian life. It is only in wrestling with actual condi- 
tions that the truth, vitality and power of Christian faith 
reveal themselves. The Church must accept the whole of 
its mission and regard no part of the world which God 
has made as outside its province if it is to discover the 
fulness and wealth of the meaning of its own faith. 

In consequence of the lack of the missionary spirit the 
Church is not today, as it ought to be, in the mid-stream 
of the world’s life. It is not sufficiently in touch at many 
points with real things. The constructive and creative 

I thought of our time does not proceed in large measure 
from those who start with Christian presuppositions. New 
vital forces are re-shaping the modern world, which have 
scarcely penetrated the general life of the Church and 
which it is making little conscious effort to guide and 
inspire. When one asks where in the world today one 
can find the most creative forces, most tingle and zest, 
most new insight and invention, most of the spirit of 
adventure in the pursuit of moral ideals, it is not to 
ecclesiastical circles that one would naturally turn. The 
pronouncements made by ecclesiastical bodies on social and 
moral questions are too often — there are, of course, many 
exceptions — the utterance of pious platitudes without 
knowledge and thought behind them, and practical men 
who know that only by hard and sustained thinking can a 
way be found through the perplexities and enigmas of 
modern life are apt in consequence to regard the Church 
as an influence that may be safely ignored. When a 


Christian sets himself in the name of his Master to grapple 
with the real problems of the world today, he finds that 
much of the stimulus, suggestion, and inspiration that he 
needs comes to him from non-religious quarters, and he is 
made conscious of fellowship that reaches out beyond the 
fellowship of the organized Christian society. There is 
unhappily a measure of truth in Professor Zimmern’s charge 
that ‘ the living fire of the Word ’ is not what men generally 
look for in the Churches, and that ‘ men and women in 
modern Europe have for some generations past sought 
elsewhere for the bread of life.’ 1 

Want of the missionary spirit also explains why the 
sense of fellowship is often feeble. Fellowship is invariably 
a by-product. Loyalty to a common ideal is always its 
source. It is ‘ when two strong men ’ — not two character- 
less men — ‘ stand face to face ’ that breed and birth cease 
to count. It was in the trenches during the war in the 
intensity of a life and death struggle that men experienced 
a comradeship that they had never known before. Men 
awaken to the reality of fellowship in the measure that 
they are dedicated to great ends. They find it in the solid 
fact of a common loyalty. 

Yet recognizing all this I still believe that the power 
to create and maintain a fellowship of those dedicated to 
the service of God and of their fellow-men lies in the 
Christian Church. I do not use the phrase ‘ the universal 
community of the loyal,’ which I have borrowed from 
Professor Royce, in the sense in which he used it. Detached 
from its roots in God and in the historic Christian revela- 
tion, the universal community of the loyal is cut off from 
what I believe to be the true sources of its life, growth 
and fruitfulness. Only in God, as Professor Troeltsch has 
said, ‘ are the cleavages and particularisms, the conflicts 
and exclusions, which belong to man as a natural product 
and shape his natural existence, fully transcended.’ Only 
in God can the family and the State and all other forms 

1 A. E. Zimmern in The Coming Renaissance (Edited by Sir J. Marchant), 
P- 233- 


of human association, ‘ find a bond of connexion superior 
to themselves and indestructible, because of its meta- 
physical character.’ 1 

In so far as human activity remains secular it lacks 
depth and the power to satisfy. ‘ A man is not free unless 
he is delivered from persistent, sidelong anxiety about his 
immediate effectiveness, from servitude to an incalculable 
if not whimsical human flux. He is free only if he can 
mentally direct all his work to a constant and absolute 
judgment, address his daily labour, if you like, to God, 
build his houses to God and not to men, write his books 
to God, in the State serve his God only, love his God in 
the family, and fight against the (incarnate) devil and the 
devil alone.’ 2 

Ministry, service, fellowship depend for their inspira- 
tion and vitality upon worship. The deepest bond of 
union among men is the worship of a common Father, in 
Whom they find themselves to be brethren. Men must 
worship together if they are to learn to live together and 
work together. If in all other human activities men are 
dependent on their fellows and need their co-operation, in 
the deepest region of all they cannot remain individualist. 
Philosophy and private religion, the mystical contempla- 
tion of the universe, cannot be a substitute for the common 
worship of those who are committed to a common under- 
taking and crusade. 

This common worship, if it is to inspire men to heroic 
deeds and send them forth with courage and hope in their 
hearts to fight evil, reform abuses and remove mountains 
of difficulty, must do more than evoke a feeling of awe 
I in the presence of the infinite and the absolute, of the 
unfathomed depths and mysteries of the universe. It must 
be the worship of a God Who has revealed Himself and 
Whose purpose we, at least in part, know. It is to such a 
God that the worship of the Christian Church is offered — 
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

1 Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der cbristlichen Kirchen, p. 978. 

2 W. E. Hocking, Human Nature and its Remaking , p. xii. 


Hardly any doctrine of the Church can on the Christian 
presuppositions be too high. But a high doctrine of the 
Church can be sustained only if it expresses itself in a high 
life. The supernatural life must not be less rich, less 
full, less many-sided than the natural life at its best. True 
religion should be, as Baron von Hiigel has said, ‘ by far 
the richest, the most romantic, the most entrancing and 
emancipating fact and life extant or possible anywhere 
for man.’ 1 

The Church which we believe to be the answer to 
our problems is a Church which partly is, and partly is 
yet to be. It is at once something given and something 
that we have to create. It is securely founded on the 
revelation of God’s character and purpose in Jesus Christ. 
We do not make it. We find it already existing. It com- 
passes us about with its glorious tradition and its great 
cloud of witnesses — patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, 
the wise and good, the true and brave, of every age, those 
who have laboured and suffered for justice and freedom, 
the great multitude who in life’s common ways have run 
the straight race and fought the good fight and kept the 
faith. While there rests on it this glory of the past, it 
looks also to a greater glory yet to come. It exists today 
in broken and scattered fragments, one day to be united 
in a splendid whole. The Church which we may set in 
opposition to race antagonisms is not simply the Church 
that is, with all its painful limitations and imperfections, 
but the Church also that is waiting to be born. 

When we speak of the Church, therefore, as the answer 
to the problems of race we mean, in the first place, a 
Church which, while holding firmly to its faith that in 
Christ we have God’s final and complete Word to men, 
sees God revealing Himself in every true and worthy 
impulse of human life and recognizes endless diversities 
and degrees and stages in His manifestation of Himself. 
There are elements of truth necessary to the full appre- 

1 Baron Friedrich von Htlgel, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy oj 
Religion , p. 280. 


hension of God without as well as within the organized 
Christian society. Nowhere that I know has this truth 
received finer recognition than in Baron von Hiigel’s 
Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion. Not 
even Roman Catholicism in its strictest official definitions, 
he reminds us, demands a sheer identification of the Visible 
and the Invisible Church. 1 The world is God’s world. 
Everywhere there is some truth, and this truth comes 
originally from God. Christianity because of its faith in 
the Incarnation is bound to ‘ recognize, respect, love and 
protect continually, not only the less full and less articulate 
stages of grace, in the other religions and in all they 
possess of what is true,’ but also ‘ to recognize, respect, 
love and protect the non-religious levels and complexes 
of life, as also coming from God, as occasions, materials, 
stimulations, necessary for us men towards the develop- 
ment of our complete humanity, and especially also of our 
religion.’ 2 

The Christian who believes that God is at work in 
the world which He has made will joyously welcome and 
recognize as contributing to the building up of God’s 
kingdom all the fresh knowledge of nature and man which 
the patient labours of scientists and scholars are pour- 
ing at our feet and all new insights, experiments and 
adventures that are taking place in education, politics, social 
organization and art. These various stages and ranges of 
human life, he will believe, ‘ each and all, come from God, 
possess their own immanent laws and conditions of exist- 
ence and growth, and deserve our love and service in this 
their nature and development. We shall feel sure that 
they will, in the long run, benefit (often in the most 
unexpected but most real ways) regions of life apparently 
far apart from them, and especially will aid religion, the 
deepest life of all.’ 3 In the same way the Christian will 
experience a kinship and fellowship with all lovers of truth 

1 Baron Friedrich von Hiigel, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of 
Religion , p. 230. 

2 Ibid. p. 238. 

3 Ibid. p. 239. 


and goodness in the non-Christian religions, knowing that 
whatever of truth and goodness is in them has come to 
them from God. 

The Church that is here meant is one, further, 
that will not be content to be anywhere but in the 
main stream of the world’s life. Only there can its 
mission be fulfilled. Christians will not be afraid to face 
any of the facts in God’s world. However formidable the 
menace of modern scientific knowledge or of historical 
criticism faith must meet it boldly in the open. The 
Church can meet the need of the world today only if it 
loves God with all its mind as well as with all its heart, 
and with all its heart as well as all its mind. It is com- 
paratively easy to do the one or the other ; but the 
Christian witness will be borne to the world only when 
Christians do both. The Church must be so sure of God 
that it is afraid of nothing and shrinks from nothing. 

Again in a Church which is conscious of its mission 
to the world there can be no exclusion or separation on the 
ground of race. This does not mean that as a matter of 
convenience members of different races living side by side 
may not worship in separate congregations. If there are 
differences of disposition and aptitude between races the 
genius of each will doubtless find its best expression if the 
religious life of each is allowed to develop on its own lines. 
There is nothing in this contrary to the catholicity of the 
Church of Christ. 

But wherever the separation is not a natural segregation 
but is imposed, a vital and essential truth of Christianity 
is compromised. It is not for those who are at a 
distance to pass judgment on what should be done where 
racial problems are acute. The difficulties in such situa- 
tions must be acknowledged. Where masses are concerned 
progress must often be slow. But the discussions in the 
preceding chapters have shown that the race problem is 
a world problem. The attitude to be adopted towards 
it is not merely a question for that part of the Church 
where the problem is most acute. It is a matter in which 


the whole Church of Christ is concerned. The essential 
nature of the witness of the Church to the world is involved. 
The Church must stand for something in the world’s eyes, 
or it will be swept aside as meaningless. It is committed to 
the principle that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor 
Greek, bond nor free. On the Christian view the moral 
issues of sin, redemption, grace, service, brotherhood are 
so tremendous that natural differences lose their significance. 
The body of Christ is one. All partake of the one bread. 
Take away this unity in Christ and the heart falls out of 

The Roman Catholic Church has in this matter been 
truer to the genius of Christianity than the Protestant 
bodies. Whereas in the latter in the Southern States of 
America separation is complete, in New Orleans, where 
the Roman Catholic Church predominates, Negroes and 
whites, I am told, may be seen kneeling side by side. 
Islam too may boast that it can show a brotherhood 
more real than that of modern Protestantism. A visitor 
to a Mohammedan mosque enquired what place was 
reserved for the Nawab during divine service. £ What ? ’ 
exclaimed his guide, 4 A place for the Nawab in the House 
of God ? The Nawab and the beggar stand side by side.’ 
He spoke the simple truth. In the house of God distinc- 
tions of class or race count for nothing. Unless the 
Christian Church can exhibit a brotherhood as real as 
that of Islam, we cannot be surprised if the latter is more 
successful in winning the allegiance of pagan peoples. 

How this particular problem can best be solved only 
those who have to deal with it at first hand can decide. 
But the Church must from its nature be continually 
striving to break down the barriers which separate men, 
and to unite them in a fellowship of understanding and 

Finally the line of thought we have been pursuing 
illuminates the missionary endeavours of the Church. The 
aim of missions is to bring men into the membership of the 
universal community of those who have been redeemed 


by God from bondage to the world and are dedicated to 
the fulfilment of His purpose. As the parts of the world 
are seen now to be inter-related and inter-dependent, so 
only a Church whose members are drawn from all peoples 
can truly serve the world. It must be a society which 
does not merely gather into itself individuals who leave their 
national and racial distinctions and traditions behind them 
but one that takes up these differences into its life in 
order that that life may become richer, more varied and 
more complete. In this fellowship there can be nothing 
of patronage, nothing of superiority, though differences of 
function, of experience, of capacity may have full recog- 
nition. The fundamental equality of those who all alike 
depend on God for everything they have and all alike 
strive their utmost for the coming of His kingdom is of 
the essence of the fellowship. 

To create this fellowship is an endless task, never com- 
plete on earth. The eternal has to manifest itself in time, 
the immortal to work through our mortality, the spirit to 
achieve its triumphs in and through the body. We must 
not lose sight of ‘ the necessity for all fruitful human life, 
and especially for all powerful religious life amongst men 
here below, of friction, tension, rivalry, mutual help and 
mutual supplementation, between this religious life and 
man’s other powers, opportunities, needs, tasks, environ- 
ments ’ ; nor of the ‘ danger (amongst us men so readily 
exclusive and so easily obsessed by fixed ideas) of working 
religion in such a way as to remove from its path, 
as far as ever possible, any and all of these frictions 
which in reality are essentially necessary to its own force 
and fruitfulness.’ 1 The ideal has to wrestle continually 
with actual conditions. Only through the greatness and 
difficulty of that to which it is opposed can the greatness 
of its own truth and power be fully disclosed. We need 
not lose heart because the divine treasure is contained in 
earthen vessels and its glory is often dimmed by human 

1 Baron Friedrich von Hiigel, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of 
Religion, p. xii. 


imperfection and frailty. These things may hide, but they 
cannot extinguish or enfeeble the light that is eternal and 

The creation of a fellowship in which men live together 
in mutual helpfulness and service, in which they work 
together as comrades, and in which their differences are 
a source of mutual enrichment, is possible because of that 
which already is. Truth and goodness, understanding and 
love, can be manifested in the life of men because they 
belong to a world that exists beyond time. Our endeavours 
may soar towards the skies because their roots lie deep in 
solid and enduring realities. The universal community of 
the loyal is a possibility and actuality because it draws its 
life from God and leads to God, in Whom is man’s eternal 

It is a possibility not only because of that which eternally 
is, but also because of that which has happened in time. 
When Jesus Christ came into the world, He ‘ saw the 
heavens rent asunder ’ — the hidden meaning and deepest 
nature of Reality were disclosed ; the Holy Spirit descended 
upon Him — the inexhaustible, creative energies of divine 
truth and goodness were made available to work in and 
through man ; and ‘ a voice came out of the heavens, Thou 
art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased ’ 1 — the true 
destiny and high calling of man were revealed. God has 
claimed us ‘ as those whom He should mould into the very 
likeness of His own Son, so that He should have many 
brothers, Himself the first-born ’ ; for £ the eager yearning 
of all created things is waiting, waiting now for that 
unveiling of the Vision of the Sons of God.’ 2 

1 Mark i. io, 1 1 . 

2 Romans viii. 29, 19. The Letters of St Paul. Translated by Arthur 
S. Way, D.Lit. 


Abdication, hi 
Ability — 

differences in, 64, 66, 73, 75 
measurement of, 67-75 
not determined by colour, 189 
overlapping of, 74, 82, 83 
See also Intelligence tests 
Abram and Lot, 170, 172 
Abstractions, 220-1, 233 
Acquired characters, transmissibility 
of, 48, 52 

Acquired meaning, race prejudice, a 
case of, 33 

Actuality, ideal must wrestle with, 
215. 2 57, 264 
Adowa, 3 

Adventure, 225, 233, 248 
Advisory Committee on Native Educa- 
tion in Tropical Africa, 105 
Africa — 

Christian missions in, 105, 247, 255 
education in, 105, 247, 255 
exploration of, 2 
native law in, 89 
unrest in, 5 

Western rule in, 98-107 

See also, Bantu, Kenya, Morocco, 
Negro, Nigeria, South Africa, 
West Africa 
African peoples — 
burdens of, 166 

distinctive contribution of, 174, 227 
need for open door to western 
culture, 173-4 

Amalgamation, racial, 152-6 
American Revolution, 4, 84, 87 
Americans, attitude of, to Chinese and 
Japanese, 37 
Amritsar, 234 

Anarchy, danger of, in Europe, 6, 8 
Anglo-Saxon characteristics, 66, 149, 
154. 185 

Anglo-Saxon communities and immi- 
gration, 127, 134, 139 

gulf between men and, 80 
man without justice, worst of all, 87 
social heritage distinguishes man 
from, 54 

Annam, 149 
Antagonism — 
causes of, 30-45 
growth of, 5 
Anthropology, 62, 80 
Anticipations of better age, 249 
Antipathy. See Race prejudice 
Anti-Slavery Society, 220 
Arabs in Kenya, 101 
Aristocracies, pride of, 41 
Aristotle, 81, 87 
Arlitt, Miss A. H., 73 
Armenians, 154 
Armistice Day, 16 
Armstrong, General, 228 
Arrest in development, 74 
Art, universality of, 249 
Asia — 

Christian education in, 247, 255 
immigrants from, 178-81 
industrialization of, 207 
Association of emotions with physical 
appearance, 44, 195, 209 
Athletic ability, 71 
Atlantic Monthly, The, 6, 3 7, 70 
Atmosphere, importance of, 12, 28, 221 
Attitude determined by ultimate 
values, 15, 20-2, 220—1, 229 
Aurelius, 81 

Australia, 3, 37, 126, 128, 131-2, 141, 

Awakening of Asia and Africa, 86 

Backward peoples — 

education and training, 105, 107, 
168, 173 

government of, 94-107 
social relations with, 164 
Balzac, 81 
Bantu, 81, 95 
Bentham, 85 
Binet, Prof. Alfred, 68 
Biological science, 48, 50-4, 56, 65, 
145-9, 209, 214, 217, 220, 229 
Birth-control, 201, 213-4 
Birth-rate, 138, 200 
Bitterness increased by physical differ- 
ences, 44, 195, 209 
Body, illustration of the, 223, 228 


Boers, 166 
Boy Scouts, 243 
Brahmanism, 59 
Brahmins, 15 1 

British Columbia, 35, 180, 187 
British Empire — 

possibility of disruption, 176 
principle of reciprocity (immigra- 
tion), 139 

relation of India to, 99, 108-25 
status of Indians in, 82, 133, 179-83, 

traditional policy in regard to colour, 
141. 179 

white commonwealth advocated, 1 1 1 
British Guiana, 183 
British institutions, German study of, 

British justice, 89 

British social relations in India, 161-3 
Buddhism, 96 

Bully of the planet, European man 
the, 78 

Burke, 28, 85, 99, 105 

California — 
franchise, 179 

immigration, 24, 127, 135, 137-8 
intelligence tests, 69 
Canada — 

franchise, 180, 187 
immigration, 37, 126, 127, 139, 239 
national sensitiveness, 42 
Capacity. See Ability 
Cape Province (South Africa), 180, 192 
Capital, European, in tropics, 36, 104 
Capitalism, modern, 21, 215 
Celsus, 222 

Ceylon, intermarriage in, 154 
Character, individual, the basis of 
society, 8 

Cheap labour, drives out dearer, 138 
Children — 

absence of colour- feeling among, 31 
of mixed marriages, 147, 15 1, 157 
China — 

break-up expected, 3 
comparison with Europe and India, 

emigration from, 126-8 
Indian lady in, 115 
relief of famine in, 255 
renaissance in, 4 
Chinese — 

and U.S. citizenship, 179, 186 
attitude towards other peoples, 38,66 
liked by Americans, 37 

Christianity — 

alleged failure of, 16, 96, 254, 256-8 
and facts, 15-29 
and heredity, 60 
and justice, 92 
and worship, 253, 259 
attempt to apply, gives deeper 
understanding, 215, 217, 257 
cannot accept barriers, 175, 222 
furnishes principles, not rules, 21,216 
offers complete satisfaction of 
instincts, 230 
power of early, 222 
transforms our relations with our 
fellow-men, 222-3 
Church, the Christian — 

cannot exclude on grounds of race, 

must be in mid-stream, 262 
must have knowledge of facts, 
237-9. 257 

must recognise truth outside, 260-2 
partly here, partly to be created, 260 
shortcomings of, 16, 237-8, 254-8 
the true universal community, 25 3-4 
visible and invisible, 261 
Cicero, 80 

Citizenship. See Franchise 
Civil War in America, 177, 178 
Civilization — 

and race, 39, 46, 61, 91 
appreciation of individual necessary 
to, 220-1 

based on law and justice, 90, 92, 191 
character of, changed by alien 
influx, 134-6, 154 

dependent on theory of the universe, 

expansion of European, 1-4 
growth of world, 136 
impossible if competitive interests 
dominate, 212 

inseparable from exploitation, 10, 

loyalty and co-operation necessary 
to, 21 1, 245 

protection of particular type of, 
138-41, 153-4, 166, 186 
trusteeship for weaker peoples, 101 
weakness of modern, 219 
Civilization — 

Western, not the only standard, 78 
wide differences in, 75, 136 
Claims — 

conflict of, 87, 93, 96 
to be judged in relation to common 
good, 92 

Classification of mankind, 62 



Classifications, tyranny of, 220 
Class pride, 151 
Climate, influence of, 148 
Clubs, inter-racial, 161, 243 
Colour bar, 160, 163, 164, 166, 183 
Colour prejudice. See Race pre- 

Commission on — 

African Education, 105 
International Justice and Goodwill, 


Oriental Relations, 239 
Relations with J apan, 239 
Common good, 92, 93, 212, 216-17, 
224, 225, 227 

Commonwealth, principle of the, 8, 

Communal franchise, 182, 193-5 
Communications, effect of improved, 
5. 131 

Community, universal of the loyal, 

Comparisons between races, 72, 76-9 
Competition, 137, 143, 206-7, 208-9 
Competitive and non-Competitive in- 
terests, 21 1, 224, 227-8 
Comradeship — 

in the Christian adventure, 175, 223 
in a common task, 2 1 1 , 251 
in trenches, 258 

Conference on Christian Politics, 
Economics, and Citizenship, 201, 

Constitution of United States, 177, 

Consummation distant, 249 
Contribution of different races, 78, 

Control of essential materials and 
transport, 207 
Conversion of the mind, 232 
Co-operation — 

in counsel and action, 240-4 
inter-racial, 45, 82, 113, 191, 204, 
209, 212, 213, 216-7, 22 °. 240-3 
with God, 222 
Courtesy, 142, 232-3 
Covenant of the League of Nations, 63, 
85, 100 

Crossing, effects of, 49-50, 145-8, 153 
Cup of cold water, 253 

Darwinism, 94 

Declaration of Independence, Amer- 
ican, 63, 84 

Declaration of Rights of Man, 63, 85 
Dehumanizing of life, 219 

Demetrius, 37 

Democracy, 7, 8, 64, 65, 144, 185, 187, 
191, 192, 235 

Democratic party in U.S.A., 178 
DSpeche Coloniale, La, 149 
Development — 

of natural resources, 98, 131 
peoples at different stages of, 75 
Diaz, Bartholomew, 2 
Dictation test, 128 
Differences — 

a means of enrichment, 36, 135, 186, 
223-6, 264 

association of emotions with phy- 
sical, 44, 195, 209 
attitude towards, 76, 225 
between individuals greater than 
between races, 83 
between man and animals, 54, 80 
can be transcended, 248-51, 254 
cannot be ignored, 76, 93, 164, 220 
fact of hereditary, 46, 57 
ground for withholding franchise, 

in civilization, 39-40, 75, 136 
in historical achievement, 153 
in stages of development, 75 
in temperament and character, 39 
may attract and stimulate, 39 
need not imply superiority, 76, 135, 
186, 194 

need not result in conflict, 10-11 
transcended in Christianity, 18, 175, 

within fundamental unity, 80, 81, 
82, 87, 93, 223 

Discipline, can check instinct of self- 
preservation, 21 1 

Discrimination, a cause of bitterness, 

85. i3 2 -3. 134. 172.190 

Dislikes, Christianity and, 222 
Disposition — 

importance for life, 71 
difference in, may cause dislike, 39 
Dog, experiment on, with bell-ringing, 

Dominant and recessive characters, 49 
Domination — - 

bitterness caused by, 12, 76, 134 
communal representation and, 195 
demand for equality a revolt 
against, 85 

effect on behaviour, 162 
must have disastrous consequences, 
12, 14, 91 

only successful if leads to exter- 
mination, 14, 97 

policy of, advocated, 9-10, 47, 77 


Domination — 

reaction on dominant group, go, igi 
scruples prevent complete, 4, 13-14, 
94, 97 

Ducks, experiments on young, 32 
Dumas, 81 

Dutch East Indies, 5, 67 
Dutch Reformed Church, conference 
with native leaders, 243 

East India Company, 2 
Economic factor in racial relations, 
36-8, 98, 102, 104, 126, 133, 136-9 
171, 205, 208-9, 2 48 
Educability of man, 54, 218 
Education — 

and heredity, 52, 57 
Christian Missions and, 105, 247, 255 
Colonial Office Committee on, 105 
Commission to Africa, 105 
of backward peoples, 105, 107, 168, 

of public opinion, 27, 99, 216-7, 244-6 
Egypt, 108 

Emotions attached to physical differ- 
ences, 44, 195, 209 

Emulation, honourable, a substitute 
for rivalry, 227 

England, differing pictures of, 236 
Environment, influence of, 53, 56, 59, 


Ephesus, 37 
Equality — 

attitude of religions to, 59 
before the law, 88-90 
demand for, a protest against in- 
equality, 84 

demand of other races for, 63, 85- 
86, 195 

idea of, needs elucidation, 63-4 
influence of belief in, 25, 93 
in natural ability, 63-79 
political, 176-96 
social, 159-75 

true meaning of, 92, 125, 228 
Ethical issues in race relations, more 
important than biological, 229 
Ethic, no absolute Christian, 216 
Eugenics, 52, 59, 60 
Europe — 

comparison with India and China, 

expansion of, 1-4 
lack of political faith in, 6-9 
relations with Africa, 94-107 
unity of civilization of, 135 
Evolution, influence of doctrine of, 94 

Exclusiveness, social, 161, 162, 219-23. 

Existence, preservation of national, 
i3 8 -9, 153-4, 188 
Expansion of white race, 1-4 
Exploitation — 

alleged necessity for civilization, 
10, 95 

can be kept in check only by strong 
government, 98 
ruthless practice of, 94 
Extermination of weaker races, 14, 
94- 96, 97- x 9° 

Extinction, fear of, 154 

Factory legislation, 28 
Facts — 

attitude towards, 15, 29 
necessity of recognizing, 23, 27, 29, 
46, 66, 76, 103, 1 18, 121, 125, 184, 
195, 197-8, 217, 229, 236-7 
Family — treatment of differences in 
capacity in, 76 

Fear, 11, 140-1, 143, 166, 187-8, 206, 

Fecundity of nature, 198 
Federal Council of the Churches of 
Christ in America, 238-9 
Feeling, danger of its assuming 
control, 1 14, 1 16 
Fellowship — 

a present reality, 249 
Christianity and, 175, 255-6, 258 
creation of possible, 264-5 
dependent on worship, 259 
experienced for first time, 251 
in face of common danger, 250 
in science, 249 

in service of common task, 251 
international, 125, 243 
must be rooted in eternal order, 21, 

Feminist Movement. See Women’s 

Ferguson, Mr G. O., 73 
Fiji, 183 

Food, population and, 202, 204, 209 
Fool, braying a, 57 
Force, policy of, 4, 13, 91, 112 
See also Domination 
Forests a slow growth, 249 
Formulas, powerlessness of, 27 
Franchise, 176-96 
Franklin, Benjamin, 198 
Fraser, Rev. A. G„ 35, 74, 83 
French attitude in racial questions, 
149, 160, 176 


French Revolution, 34, 57, 63, 85, 87 
Friendships between different races, 
81, 163, 175, 233, 247 
Frontiers, racial, 188 
Fusion, racial. See Amalgamation 

Galton, Francis, 50 
Gandhi, Mahatma, 123, 161 
Generalization, evil effects of, 43, 219- 

Gentleman’s Agreement, 127, 139, 140 
George, St, 210 

German and British institutions con- 
trasted, 186 

Germ-plasm, continuity of, 48 
Girl Guides, 243 

Given element in individual, 5 3, 56-60, 
153, 217, 248 
Goal, distance of, 216-7 
Godwin, William, 197 
Gordon (mental tests), 70 
Government of one people by another, 

Grading of races, 67, 75 

Great Britain, 34, 42, 89, 99, 179, 207. 

See also British Empire 
Gresham’s Law, 138 
Gulick, Dr S. L., 179, 239 

Human nature — 

need for studying, 8, 23 
plasticity of, 29, 218 
religious faith in, 59, 222 
Humanitarianism, 96, 103, 220 
Humanity — 

common to all men, 80 
has rights as well as individual 
peoples, 98 
needs all races, 79 
Hunger, effect of, 209, 21 1-2 
Hybridization. See Crossing, effects of 

Ideal must wrestle with actuality, 
215, 257, 264 
Idealism, 27, 28, 103, 216 
Idea, power of, to communicate itself, 

Ideas, false, cause race difficulties, 216, 


Ignorance, cannot be protected against 
itself, 184 

Immigration, 24, 35, 37, 40, 101, 102, 
126-44, I 7°> 206, 239 
Imperial Conference, 1897, 141 
1918, 139, 181 
1921, 119, 133, 181 
1923, 82, 187, 188, 191 
Impersonal in modern life, 219, 239-40 
Inborn racial capacity. See Ability, 

Indentured labour, 129 
India — 

and British Commonwealth, 108-25 
comparison with Europe and China, 

Edmund Burke on, 99 
idea of, in mind of Englishman, 236 
intermarriage between communities 
in, 151, 154 
Indians — 

absence of migratory instinct 
among, 129 

and racial relations, 161-3, 234 
status of abroad, 82, 126, 127, 128, 
133. 139 , 179-83, 185, 186, 187-8, 
190, 195 
Individual — 

autonomy of, 59 

must not be lost in the mass, 175, 

needs support of community, 23 
originates all reforms, 232 
value of, 19, 92, 94, 218-21, 225 
Individuality of peoples not to be 
blurred, 136, 152 
Industrialization of Asia, 207 

Half-caste population, 43, 147, 148, 
150, 151, 155, 157 
Harding, President, 169 
Hatred, racial. See Race Prejudice 
Helvetius, 57 
Hercules, choice of, 209 
Heredity, 46-62, 64, 65, 70, 145-6, 
152, 153, 214 

Heterogeneity of population, 148 
Hibbert Journal, The, 56, 201 
Hindu, The, 86, 133 
Historical method, the, 25 
Historical criticism, 262 
History, importance of, 23, 66, 136, 
148, 153, 171, 184, 186, 218 
History teaching in schools, 244 
Homogeneity of population, 148, 187 
Honour, sense of, 134, 139, 190, 191,211 
Hope, influence of, 72, 74, 130 
Hospitality to foreigners, 159-60 
Hospitals, mission, 247 
Hottentots, 95 
Howard, Captain, 228 
Human nature — 

common elements greater than 
differences, 93 

finds full satisfaction in Christian 
ideal, 230 


Industrial revolution, 201 
Inequality, fact of, 63-79, 92 
Inheritance. See Heredity 
Instincts — 

find complete satisfaction in 
Christian ideal, 230 
of self-assertion, 78 
of self-preservation, 134, 187, 21 1 
of sex, 150 

not an explanation of race feeling, 
30, 31. 35. 43-4 

Institutions, protection of, 40, 91—2, 
135, 138, i 4°. x66, 183, 185, 187, 

Integrity — racial and national, 61, 136, 
x 39, 14°. X 5L *53-4. l66 > I 7°> 

Intellect and will, 26 
Intellectual anarchy in Europe, 9 
Intellectual effort, necessary on part 
of Church, 237-8 
Intelligence tests, 68-74, 82 
Intermarriage, 42-3, 145-58, 159 
International Labour Office, 136 
Inter-racial Co-operation, Commission 
on, 241-2 

Inter-racial Movement in U.S.A., 168, 
172, 241-2 

Invention, need of new political, 8, 

Irish and balance of power, 187 
Italy, 3, 7, 72 
Izzat, 191 

Jamaica, 163, 183 

Japan — 

consciousness of superiority, 66 
demand for equality, 63, 85, 132 
rise and transformation of, 2-4, 55, 
72, 82 

Japanese- American Association, con- 
ference in Tokyo, 13 1, 132-3 

Japanese, immigration of, to western 
countries, 24, 127, 131-3, 137, 
139-40, 143, 239 

treatment of, in U.S.A., 179, 185, 
186, 187, 190 

Java, 67 

Jesus Christ, 18, 19, 26, 231, 232, 233, 
253, 254, 256, 259, 260, 263, 265 

Jews, 66, 154, 169 

Journalism, a form of public service, 

Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council, 89 

Justice, 13, 87, 89, 91, 92, 98, 171-2, 
191. 233 

Kandy, 35, 74, 83 
Kenya, 24, 35, 101, 104, 181-3, 190 
Kingdom of God, 18, 22, 26, 175, 214, 
216, 221, 223, 225, 228, 229, 232, 
244, 249 

Knowledge, necessity of, 235, 237, 

Labour — 

American Federation of, 165 
cheap, eliminates high standard 
stocks, 138 

Labourers, Oriental immigration of, 
forbidden, 127 

Labour Party in Great Britain, 118 
Land question — 
in California, 127 
in Kenya, 102 

in South Africa, 171, 172, 190 
Law, reign of, 88-90 
League of Nations, 63,82,85, 100, 101, 
Life — 

a battle on everchanging fronts, 216 
competition with other, 87 
insurgence of, 86, 198, 203 
Livingstone, 105 
Lot, 170, 172 
Loyal — 

universal community, 248, 258 
essentially kin, 252 

Loyalty, necessary to civilization, 21 1 

Machinery of knowledge, organisa- 
tion of, 237, 238 
Madras, 244 
Magnanimity, 28, 227-8 
Main miracle of the universe, 59 
Malaysia, 2, 3, 5 
Man — 

and a brother, 220 
distinguishing characteristics of, 54, 
87, 153, 218 

does not live by bread alone, 211,213 
Mandates, 100-1 
Mark, St, quoted, 19, 254, 265 
Marriage. See Intermarriage 
Matthew, St, quoted, 57 
Measurements — 
of skull, 11, 62 

of mental qualities, 67-74, 148-9 
Mediterranean race, 56 
Men to be treated as men, 84, 87, 
218-21, 235, 239-40, 244 
Mendel, 48-50 

Mental differences, 56, 62, 63-79, 82 


Mental pictures, 235, 236 
Mestizo, 148 
Mice, experiments on, 53 
Migration, 97, 130, 136 
See also Immigration 
Mind of West, divided against itself, 
4. 13 

Missionary nation, 102 
Missionary, outspokenness of an in- 
dividual, 234 

Missionary spirit, lack of, in the 
Church, 256-8 
Missions, Christian — 
aim of, 263—4 

contribution to education, 105, 247, 

influence on racial relations, 246 
tendency to limit objective, 256 
Mixed marriages. See Intermarriage 
Mohammed Ali, no 
Mohammedan attitude to racial dis- 
tinction, 263 

Mohammedans, 96, 151, 154, 193 
Monarchical principle in Europe, 6 
Moral capacity, measurement of, 68 
Moral effort, tension of, 216 
Moral unification of the world, 6, 9 
More, Hannah, 41 
Morocco, 160— 1 

Nationality, 12, 13, 23, 38, 226-7 
National tradition, importance of, 

23. 147 

Native Affairs Act, 1920 (S. Africa), 

Native affairs (S. Africa), 243 
Native Lands Act (S. Africa), 17 1-2 
Naturalization laws of U.S.A., 178 
Natural rights, 85 
Nature, fecundity of, 198 
Necessity and law, 104 
Negro — 

alleged arrest in development, 74 
comparison in ability with whites, 
72-4, 81-2 

distinctive contribution of, 174, 

in U.S.A., 5, 91, 126, 154, 155, 165- 
69, 177, 241-2 

See also Africa and Jamaica 
Negrophilist, 104 
New England, 2, 138 
New Orleans, 263 
New Republic, The, 71, 73 
Newspapers, power of, 245-6 
New Statesman , The, 203 


New Zealand — 
franchise, 34, 179 
immigration regulations, 128 
political representation of Maoris, 

Nigeria, 89, 104 

Non-Christian religions, seekers after 
God in, 261-2 

Non-religious levels of life, 261, 264 

Nordic race, 10, 12, 56, 66, 77 

Numbers, important factor in relations 
between races, 34, 156, 166, 179- 
80, 187 

Obstruction of impulses by human 
causes, 122 

Ocean routes, control of, 207, 208 
Opportunities missed by inches and 
not recur, 83 

Opportunity, equality of, 168-74 
Orange Free State, 180 
Ottoman power, 1, 2 
Oundle, 224 

Outlook, need for change of, 225 
Overlapping between races in respect 
of ability, temperament, etc., 74, 
82, 83 

Over-population, 129-30, 203, 206 

Pacific Coast and Japanese, 37, 127, 
140, 143, 239 
Paine, Tom, 42 
Parnell, Charles Stewart, 187 
Parr, Dr, 41 

Pass laws in S. Africa, 165 
Patricians, 151 
Paul, St, 19, 60, 253 
Pearson, Prof. Karl, 50 
Personality. See Individual 
Peru, 148 
Philippines, 4, 108 

Physical differences, 34, 44, 62, 151, 
195, 209 

Picture in men’s minds, 235, 236 
Pioneers and self-defence, 96-7, 166 
Pioneer settlements, only by white 
races, 129 

Pitt, William, 8, 106 
Plasticity of human nature, 29, 218 
Political animal, man a, 87 
Political equality, 176-96 
Political faith, lack of, in Europe, 6 
Political power over another people a 
trust, 99 

Political rights, bestowal does not 
| give capacity to use, 184 



Population, 24, 129-32, 197-2x4 
right of a community to control, 
139. 140 

Powers with which we work not ours, 

Practical steps, 232-47 
Prejudices, Christianity and our, 222 
Press, power of the, 245-6 
Prestige of West weakened in war, 4 
Prince Henry the Navigator, 2 
Privy Council Judicial Committee, 89 
Progress, 39, 94, 153, 212,221 
Prophets, a creative force in history, 

Protection of natural type. See In- 
tegrity, Civilization 
Proverbs quoted, 57 
Psychological attitude, influence of 
Christianity upon, 222 
Psychology, 26, 57, 58 
Psychopathic temperament, 78 
Public opinion, education of, 99, 244 

Quality of population, 201, 214 
Quantitative methods, 24 
Quarterly Review, The, 53, 229 
Queensland, 180 

Race — 

can have no place in the Church, 

exaggerations of, 12, 46 
from religious standpoint unim- 
portant, 23 

may be means of enrichment, 225 
may embitter economic struggle, 

must not be confused with particu- 
lar line of descent, 60-1 
no pure races, 61 
not a dividing-line, 83 
reality of, 217 
significance of, 61 

See also Antagonism, Civiliza- 
tion, Differences, Discrimination, 
Equality, Intermarriage 
Race prejudice — 

a modern phenomenon, 34 
barely exists among the French, 
149, 160, 176 
not shown by children, 31 
probably not inborn, 30, 43 
varies with circumstances, 34-5 
Racial relations, main issues ethical, 
43-4. 229 

importance for Christianity, 262-3 
Raw materials, 98, 207 

Realism in politics, 27, 29 
Realities. See Facts 
Reality, the ultimate, 252 
Reason — 

common to all men, 80 
appeal to, 78, 122, 212 
Reciprocity, 139, 142 
Reconstruction period in U.S.A., 185 
Religious differences a bar to inter- 
marriage, 15 1, 154 

Remake, man’s capacity to, 153, 218 
Representative institutions. See 

Repression, futility of, 4, 14, 27 

Reverence for life, 125, 221, 244 

Right above might, 88 

Rights of Man, 63, 85 

Romans — Epistle to the — quoted, 265 

Russia, 1, 3, 7 

Russo-Japanese War, 38 

Samaritan woman, 233 
Sapru, Sir Tej Bahadur, 82, 191 
School, relations in a, 35, 83, 87, 224 
Science, 6, 10, 25, 47, 65, 75, 240, 249, 
257, 262 

Scott, Captain, 21 1 
Segregation, 154, 169-72, 175, 262 
Service, 8, 18, 20, 105, 224, 228, 247, 

Sex impulse, 150 
Shaftesbury, Lord, 28 
Shakespeare, 123, 134, 250 
Shrinkage of world, 5, 204 
Singhalese, 35, 154 

Sinking ships, record of chivalry in, 

Skull measurements, 62 
Slavery, 19, 25, 84, 100, 106, 177, 190 
Slipper-animalcule, 198 
Small peoples sacrificed to progress, 

Smuts, General, 188, 191, 195 
Social equality, 115, 159-75 
Social heritage distinct from biological, 


Social problems, Christian contribu- 
tion to, 215 
Social purpose, 212 
Society — 

held together by moral beliefs, 88 
impersonal character of modern, 
218-21, 235 

racial differences may disrupt, 91 
Solidarity, racial, 10, 13, 234 
South Africa, 3, 91, 128, 155, 164-6, 
171-2, 180-1, 187, 188, 192-5, 


South America, 3, 147-8 
Southern States of U.S.A., 31, 91, 150, 
164, 168, 177, 241-2 
Standard for comparison of races, 15, 
29, 67, 76-9, 233 
Stanford University, 69 
Starfish, 198 

Statistical method, 24, 50, 148 
Stoic philosophy, 80 
Strain, distinct from race, 60-1, 149 
Strong, Miss, 72-3, 74 
Superiority — 

assertion a cause of racial bitterness, 
38, 41, 134, 163 

belief in, natural to all peoples, 66 
in what it consists, 67, 76-9 
in advantage an opportunity of 
service, 76 

not necessarily result of race, 84 
not necessarily involved in differ- 
ence, 76, 135, 186, 194 
Suspicion, growth of, 13, 42, 143, 175 
Switzerland, 154 

Talents, parable of the, 57 
Tamils, 154 

Temperament, 39, 71-2, 83 
Theory of the universe, present lack 
of a, 9 

Thought, indispensable for solution of 
problems, 235, 237, 248, 257 
Trade and commerce, 98, 102 
Tradition, importance of, 40, 55, 61, 
136, 147, 226 

Transportation, control of, 207 
Transvaal, 166, 180 
Travel, racial contacts in, 162, 164-5 
Trevessa, 21 1, 212 
Trinity College, Kandy, 35, 74, 83 
Tropics, raw products of, needed by 
world, 98, 207 

and European capital, 36, 104 
Trusteeship, 99-107 

Unification of the world, 5, 6, 9 
Unit factors, 50 

United States of America, 37, 63, 72, 
84, 126-8, 135, 139-40, 143, 149, 
154, 164-8, 171, 177-9, 238-9, 241 

Unity — 

of human mind, 82 
of mankind, 80, 86, 244 

Vagueness of aim an obstacle, 236-7 
Value of individual. See Individual 
Values, 15, 22, 29, 78, 229 
Variability from crossing of stocks, 
145. 146 

Variations, between individuals and 
races. See Differences 
Vasco da Gama, 2 
Vergennes, Comte de, 4 
Versailles, 63, 85 
Visitors, oriental, in West, 159 

War, 12, 204, 212-3 
Washington Conference, 86 
Weaker peoples need protection, 98- 

Weismann, 48 

Wells’ Outline of History, 244 
West Africa, British, 89, 164 
Western Australia, 180 
Western mind, divided, 13 
White Cap Chief, 89 
Wilberforce, William, 100, 105, 106 
Wilson, President, 63 
Women of Southern States of U.S.A. 
active in Inter-racial Movement, 

Women’s suffrage, 87, 195 
Work, powers exhausted in, 253 
World To-morrow, The, 168 
Worship, 231, 253, 259 
Wrestling of ideal with actuality, 215, 
257, 264 

Yalu, battle of the, 3 

“ Yellow Peril,” 137 

Young animals and the fear of man, 


Zulu wars, anecdote of, 250 



Andrews, C. F., 

The Asiatic Question. (Durban, 
1920). 130 


Politics. Translated by B. Jowett. 
(Clarendon Press, 1908). 88 

Balfour, A. J„ 

Theism and Humanism. (Hodder 
& Stoughton, 1914). 21 

Bee-line Discussions on Racial Dis- 
crimination. (Nissei-Kai Tokyo, 
1919). 86, 131, 133 

Benson, Sir Frank, 

Article in Outward Bound. (October 
1923). 250 

Blunt, Wilfred Scawen, 

My Diaries. (Martin Seeker, 1921). 

Boas, Franz, 

The Mind of Primitive Man. (Mac- 
millan, 1911). 82 

Du Bois, W. E. B., 

Souls of Black Folk. (Constable, 
1902). 81 

Bryce, James, 

Modern Democracies. 2 vols. 

(Macmillan, 1921). 7, 246 

Race Sentiment as a Factor in 
History. Creighton Lecture. 
(Hodder & Stoughton, 1915). 

South A merica : Observations and 
Impressions. (Macmillan, 1912). 

Bunyan, John, 

The Pilgrim’s Progress. 210 
Buell, R. L„ 

Article in Foreign A {fairs. (Decem- 
ber 1923). 140, 143 

Burke, Edmund, 

Speeches. 4 vols. (1816 Edition, 
Longmans, Hurst, Rees, Orme 
& Brown). 29, 99 
Burt, Cyril, 

Mental and Scholastic Tests. (P. S. 
King, 1922). 70 


Candler, Edmund, 

Abdication. (Constable, 1922). hi 
C arlyle, A. J„ 

In Western Races and the World. 
Ed. Marvin. (Milford, 1922). 80 
Carr-Saunders, A. M., 

The Population Problem. (Claren- 
don Press, 1922). 73, 130, 146, 

147 . 199 

De Legibus. 80 

Christ and Human Need, 1921. 
(Student Christian Movement). 
1 14 

Conklin, E. G., 

Heredity and Environment. Re- 
vised Fourth Edition. (Prince- 
ton University Press, Milford, 

1922) . 48, 51, 52, 54, 65, 145, 147 
Couperus, Louis, 

The Hidden Force. (Jonathan 
Cape, 1921). 67 

Coupland, R., 

Wilberforce. (Clarendon Press, 

1923) . 100, 107 

Cunningham, J. T., 

Hormones and Heredity. (Constable, 
1921). 53 
Curtis, L., 

Dyarchy. (Clarendon Press, 1920). 

Dibelius, Wilhelm, 

England. 2 vols. (Deutsche Ver- 
lags-Anstalt, Stuttgart, 1923). 

Dicey, A. V., 

Lectures on the Relation between Law 
and Public Opinion in England 
during the Nineteenth Century. 
2nd Edition. (Macmillan, 1914). 


Introduction to the Study of the Law 
of the Constitution. Eighth Edi- 
tion. (Macmillan, 1915). 89 
Dixon, Roland B., 

The Racial History of Man. 
(Scribner’s, 1923). 11 


2 77 

j East, E. M., 

Mankind at the Crossroads. (Scrib- 
ners, T1923), 131, 146, 204, 205, 

206, 209 

» Education in Africa. ( See Jones.) 
Emigration and Immigration. (In- 
ternational Labour Office, 1922). 


Ferrero, Dr Guglielmo, 

Article in The Atlantic Monthly. 
(March 1921). 6, 8 

Field, G. C„ 

Article in The Hibbert Journal. 
(January 1923). 56 

Foerster, Fr. W., 

Mes Combats. (Librairie Istra, 
Strasbourg, 1922). 95, 104 

Gandhi, Mahatma, 

Freedom's Battle. (Ganesh, Madras, 
1921). 161 

Giddings, F. H., 

Studies in the Theory of Human 
Society. (Macmillan, 1922). 66 

Gooch, G. P. (See Whitehouse.) 

Gore, Bishop, 

Christianity applied to the Life of 
Men and of Nations. (Essex 
Lecture). 256 
Grant, Madison, 

in Preface to Stoddard — Rising 
Tide of Colour. 77 
Gulick, Sidney, L., 

American Democracy and Asiatic 
Citizenship. (Scribners, 1918). 

Hadfield, J. Arthur, 

The Spirit. Ed. B. H. Streeter. 
(Macmillan, 1919). 230 
Hammond, J. L. and Barbara, 

Lord Shaftesbury . (Constable, 1923). 

■ Harnack, Adolf, 

The Mission and Expansion of 
Christianity . 2 vols. (Williams 

& Norgate, 1908). 222 
Hobhouse, L. T., 

The Elements of Social Justice. 
(George Allen & Unwin, 1922). 93 
Hocking, W. E., 

The Meaning of God in Human 
Experience. (Yale University 
Press, Milford, 1912). 231 

Hocking, W. E. 

Human Nature and its Remaking. 
(Yale University Press, 1918. 
Revised Edition, 1923). 18, 60, 

218, 230, 253, 259 
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 

Essays and Addresses on the Phil- 
osophy of Religion. (J. M. Dent, 
1921). 17, 260, 261, 264 

•Huxley, T. H„ 

Man's Place in Nature. Collected 
Essays, Vol. VII. (Macmillan, 
1894). 80 

•Illingworth, J. R., 

Reason and Revelation. (Macmillan, 
1902). 18 

Indians in Kenya. Cmd. 1922. (July 

1923) . 102 

Inge, W. R., 

Outspoken Essays. First Series. 
(Longmans, Green, 1919). 78, 
201, 210 

International Review of Missions. 
(A. C. Cumaraswamy, January 

1924) . 116 

Jacks, L. P., 

Religious Perplexities. (Hodder & 
Stoughton, 1922). 21 

James, William, 

The Will to Believe, and other 
essays in popular philosophy. 
(Longmans, Green, 1897). 26 

The Varieties of Religious Experi- 
ence. (Longmans, Green, 1902). 

-Jones, Thomas Jesse, 

Education in Africa. A Study of 
West, South and Equatorial 
Africa by the African Education 
Commission, under the Auspices 
of the Phelps-Stokes Fund and 
Foreign Mission Societies of North 
America and Europe. (Phelps- 
Stokes Fund, 1922). 105 

Josey, C. C., 

Race and National Solidarity. 
(Scribner’s, 1923). 10, 13, 78, 207 

Keane, A. H., 

Man : Past and Present. Revised 
Edition. (Cambridge University 
Press, 1920). 61 


Keith, Sir Arthur, 

Nationality and Race. (Milford, 

1919)- 31. 150 

Kidd, Benjamin, 

The Science of Power. Sixth Edi- 
tion. (Methuen, 1919). 33 
Kipling, Rudyard, 

Barrack-Room. Ballads. 250 

Lankester, Sir Ray, 

Article in Encyclopedia Britannica. 

Lindsay, E. V. and A. D., 

Article in The Hihbert Journal. 
(January 1924). 201 

Link, Prof. H. C„ 

Article in The Atlantic Monthly. 
(September 1923). 70 

Lippmann, Walter, 

Liberty and the News. (Harcourt, 
Brace & Howe, 1920). 246 
Public Opinion. (George Allen & 
Unwin, 1922). 235, 237 

Article in The New Republic. 
(November 8, 1922). 71 

Lovett, Sir Verney, 

A History of the Indian N ationalist 
Movement. (John Murray, 1920). 

Lucas, Sir Charles, 

The Partition and Colonization of 
Africa. (Clarendon Press, 1922). 
107, 179 

Lugard, Sir F. D., 

The Dual Mandate in British 
Tropical Africa. (Blackwood, 
1922). 98, 164, 170, 208 

Article in Outward Bound. (Janu- 
ary 1924). 102 

Macdonald, J. Ramsay, 

In The Times. (March 3rd, 1924). 

M'Dougall, W., 

The Group Mind. (Cambridge Uni- 
versity Press, 1920). 146, 148 

National Welfare and National 
Decay. (Methuen, 1921). 52 

Article in The New Republic. (June 
27. 1923). 73 
Maeterlinck, Maurice, 

Wisdom and Destiny. Trans. A. 
Sutro, Thirteenth Edition. 
(George Allen & Unwin, 1915). 

Malthus, T. R., 

An Essay on the Principle of Popula- 
tion. 2 vols., Second Edition, 
1803. (Everyman’s Library). 

197, 198 

-Marett, R. R., 

Anthropology. (Home University 
Library, Williams & Norgate, 
1911). 62 
Marvin, F. S., 

Western Races and the World 
(Essays, arranged and edited). 
The Unity Series V. (Milford, 
1922). 80 

Mental and Scholastic Tests among 
Retarded Children. Board of 
Education Pamphlets, No. 44. 
(H.M. Stationery Office, 1923). 70 
Murphy, E. G., 

The Basis of Ascendancy. (Long- 
mans, Green, 1909). 29, 91, 

92, 136, 155, 169, 184, 189, 190, 

Naumann, Friedrich, 

Quoted by Foerster. 95 
Negro in Chicago, The. Report by 
the Chicago Commission on Race 
Relations. (University of Chicago 
Press, 1922). 165 

Negro Year Book, The, 1921-2. Ed. 
Monroe N. Work. (Tuskegee). 

Nielsen, Peter, 

The Black Man’s Place in South 
Africa. (Juta, Capetown, 1922). 

Okuma, Count 

In Bee-line Discussions. 85, 132 
Oliver, Sydney, 

White Capital and Coloured Labour. 
The Socialist Library IV. (In- 
dependent Labour Party, 1906). j 
36, 97, 104, 164, 189 
Speech in House of Lords. 117 

Parliamentary Debates — 

House of Lords, 26th and 27th 
February 1924, 118 
House of Lords, 26th July 1923, 194 
Pitkin, W. B., 

Must we Fight Japan ? (The | 
Century Co., 1921). 135, 138 


2 79 

Poincare, M., 

In The Times, March ioth 1923. 

Proceedings of a Conference between the 
Secretary of State for the Colonies 
and the Premiers of the Self-govern- 
ing Colonies, C. 8596. (H.M. 

Stationery Office, 1897). 141 

Punnett, R. C., 

Mendelism. (1919). 72 

Article in The Encyclopedia of 
Religion and Ethics. 51-2 

Rivers, W. H. R., 

Psychology and Politics. (Kegan 
Paul, 1922). 58 

Rohrbach, Paul , 

Deutsche Kolonialwirtschaft. (Buch- 
verlag der “ Hilfe,” Berlin, 1909). 
95, 98 

The Round Table, 

September 1920, 249 
December 1922, 160, 193 
March 1923, 91 
September 1923, 42 
March 1924, 161 
Rowland, John T., 

Article in The Outlook. (March 
1924). 154 

Royce, Josiah, 

The Problem of Christianity . 2 vols. 

(Macmillan, 1913). 223, 252 

Sanderson of Oundle, 

(Chatto & Windus, 1923). 224 

Schweitzer, Albert, 

Civilization and Ethics. (A. & C. 

Black, 1923). 221, 240 

The Decay and the Restoration of 
Civilization. (A. &. C. Black, 
1923). 9, 219 
Selborne, Lord, 

•' Speech in House of Lords, 193-4 
Shaw, Lord, of Dunfermline, 

The Law of the Kinsmen. (Hodder 
& Stoughton, 1923). 88, 90 

Status of Indians in the British 
Empire, The. (Proceedings at 
the Imperial Conference, 24th, 
29th, and 31st October 1923). 
187, 188 
Stephen, Leslie, 

The English Utilitarians. (Duck- 
worth, 1900). 42 

Stoddard, Lothrop, 

The New World of Islam. (Chap- 
man & Hall, 1921). 13 

The Revolt against Civilization, The 
Menace of the Under-man. 
(Chapman & Hall, 1922). 65, 


The Rising Tide of Colour against 
White World-supremacy. (Scrib- 
ner’s, 1920). 10, 13, 46, 60, 77, 

129, 205 

Tennyson, Alfred, Lord, 59 
Thompson, Warren S., 

In W. B. Pitkin — Must we fight 
Japan ? 138 

Thomson, J. Arthur, 

What is Man ? (Methuen, 1923). 
58, 146 

The System of Animate Nature. 2 
vols. (Williams & Norgate, 
1920). 48, 54, 198 

Article in The Quarterly Review. 
(October 1923). 53, 229 

Townsend, Meredith, 

Asia and Europe. Third Edition. 
(Constable, 1905). 109 

Troeltsch, Ernst, 

Die Soziallehren der christlichen 
Kirchen und Gruppen. (J. C. B. 
Mohr, Tubingen, 1912). 20, 22, 

215, 216, 259 

Wallas, Graham, 

The Great Society. (Macmillan, 
1914). 16 

Our Social Heritage. (George Allen 
& Unwin, 1921). 16, 17, 123, 236 

Human Nature in Politics. Third 
Edition. (Constable, 1920). 16, 

24, 30, 96, 97 
Washington, Booker T., 

My Larger Education. (Doubleday, 
Page, 1911). 228 

Up from Slavery. (Nelson, 1900). 
169, 228 

Weale, B. L. Putnam, 

The Conflict of Colour. (Macmillan, 
1910). 30, 31, 39 
Wells, H. G„ 

Article in The Empire Review. 
(October 1923). in 
Whitehouse, J. H., and Gooch, G. P. 
Wider A spects of Education. (Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1924), 


Williams, L. F. Rushbrook, 

Statement exhibiting the Moral and 
Material Progress of India during 
the year 1922-23. (H.M. Sta- 
tionery Office, 1923). 191 

Williamson, J. A., 

A Short History of British Expansion. 
(Macmillan, 1922). 4 

Wright, Harold, 

Population. (Cambridge University 
Press, 1923). 199, 203 

Zimmern, A. E. 

The Coming Renaissance. Ed. Sir 
J. Marchant, 258 


Progress in Religion to the Christian Era 

By T. R. Glover, M.A., LL.D., author of The Jesus of History , 

etc. Third edition. Demy 8vo. ios. 6d. net. 

“ A certain knowledge of the non-Christian religions, past and present, is a 
condition both of a scientific view of Christianity, and of a rational apologetic, and 
in bringing this knowledge within reach of the average English reader Mr Glover 
has |done a useful and important work. It is needless to say he has done it in a 
temper at once scholarly and religious ; to few writers does religion owe so great 
a debt.” — Spectator. 

Christ and Labour 

By C. F. Andrews. 4s. net ; paper, 2s. 6d. net. 

Our social problems can only be understood or solved on a world scale. Mr 
Andrews has studied labour questions at first hand, not only in England but in India, 
Africa, and the Far East. This book is full of vivid illustrations drawn from personal 
experience in many lands. 

“ Few men can know international labour problems better than he ; few can have 
seen the underworld of serfdom at closer quarters, and, though he would probably be 
the first to deny it, few can have paid for knowledge a greater price. . . . It is a book 
which will have to be read and studied and reckoned with." — Manchester Guardian. 

Christianity and Psychology 

By F. R. Barry, M.A., D.S.O. Second edition. 5s. net ; 

paper, 3s. net. 

“ This eminently wise book. . . . Students of the psychology of religion should 
take care to read this excellent book.” — Times Literary Supplement. 

" Like all Mr Barry’s speaking and writing, it is marked by theological and 
philosophical learning, a multitude of striking ideas, vivid flashes of insight, and 
a power of penetrating and eloquent phrasing.” — The Guardian. 

Christian Beliefs and Modern Questions 

O. C. Quick, Canon of Carlisle. Crown 8vo. 4s. net ; paper, 

2S. 6d. net. Second edition. 

“ His work manifests in the highest degree loyalty to the Christian faith, soundness 
of judgment, clearness in exposition, and a singularly winsome persuasiveness. It 
would be hard to name any book in which, within the same compass, Christian 
beliefs were more wisely expounded. ” — Expository Times. 

Is Christian Experience an Illusion ? 

An Essay in the Philosophy of Religion. By Henry Balmforth, 

M.A. With an introduction by the Bishop of Manchester. 

Crown 8vo. 4s. net. 

" It is written specially for the large body of thoughtful men and women inside and 
outside the Church who, without being specialists in philosophy or psychology, wish 
to face difficulties and think out their religion for themselves. ... By this volume 
Mr Balmforth has proved that he is a thinker, that his conclusions have behind them 
the strength of sound reason, and that he has a facility for exposition which would 
be valuable in any great cause." — Manchester Evening News. 



Men, Women and God 

A Discussion of Sex Questions from the Christian Point of View. 
By A. Herbert Gray, M.A., D.D. With an Appendix on 
“Some of the Physiological Facts,” by Charles E. Gray, M.D. 
(Edin.). Third edition. 4s. net ; paper, 3s. net. 

Contents: Knowing!the Facts ; Comradeship ; Love; Falling in Love and getting Engaged ; 
Our Moral Standards; A Man’s Struggle; Prostitution, A Chapter for Men ; A Girl’s Early 
Days; Involuntary Celibacy; The Art of Being Married; Unhappy Marriages; The 
Influence of Social Conditions; Forgetting the Things which are Behind ; Appendix. 

“This book can be placed in the hands of young people of either sex, and there are few such, 
few married people, and fewer parents, who would not receive from it counsel helpful in the 
highest degree.” — Glasgow Herald . 

Clutton Brock's Last Work 

The Necessity of Art 

By A. Clutton Brock, Dr Percy Dearmer (Editor), A. S. 
Duncan-Jones, J. Middleton Murry, A. W. Pollard, Malcolm 
Spencer. 7s. 6d. net. 

Clutton Brock was closely connected throughout with the planning and writing of this book. 
It was in his house that the group met. His essay here printed is the last work from his pen. 

“ Let us hope that many will read and re-read it. It is full of suggestions and of inspiration for 
all who are working for the spiritual progress and real happiness of society.” — The Guardian. 

“To a world gone crazy after false art, or regardless of any but bad art, the authors of this 
symposium appeal for a renewing of spirit.” — The Observer. 

The Kingdom Without Frontiers 

The Witness of the Bible to the Missionary Purpose of God. 
By Hugh Martin, M.A., Literature Secretary of the Student 
Christian Movement, author of The Meaning of the Old Testament, 
etc. Crown 8vo. 3s. net ; paper, 2s. net. 

“ If the Bible is in any sense the record of a divine revelation, it bears unmistakable witness to 
an unwavering purpose in the heart of God to gather into one all the nations of the earth. The 
Bible is a missionary book, not because it contains isolated texts with a missionary flavour, but 
because the main line of argument that binds together all its volumes is the exposition, the 
unfolding and the gradual execution of a missionary purpose.” — From the Foreword. 

The Christ of the Gospels 

By A. W. Robinson, D.D., Canon of Canterbury, author of Studies 
in the Teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Just Published. 
4s. 6d. net ; paper, 3s. net. 

A new study of the majestic and mysterious figure of Christ in the Gospel story, the main lines 
of His teaching, and the significance of His life, death, and resurrection. 

Studies in the Christian Gospel for Society 

By H. A. Mess, B.A., author of The Facts of Poverty, etc. 6s. net. 

What, if anything, has Christianity to say to society, to industry, capitalism, competition, 
slums, war? What does the Kingdom of God mean in terms of to-day? Is the Christian way 
of life possible? This book is an attempt to outline a Christian sociology. 

‘‘The leading characteristic of this book is its wide vision. Mr Mess has a sense of balance 
which is remarkable. While he clearly belongs to the ‘advanced* school, he is able to show the 
difficulties in the way and to indicate what is to be said on the other side.” — The Church Times. 

Send for detailed Publication List 


Our new “ Modern Series of Missionary Biographies ” 

These biographies, which are being prepared by a group of writers, aim at giving 
to the world of to-day a fresh interpretation and a richer understanding of the life and 
work of great missionaries. 

Henry Martyn, Confessor of the Faith 

By Constance E. Padwick. With Portrait. 5s. net. 

“ The really brilliant book now before us introduces the series most happily. Miss 
Padwick has exactly the right genius for such a work.” — Church Family Newspaper. 

“Anyone who thinks missionary literature dull may be invited to read this delight- 
ful volume.” — Manchester Guardian. 

Alexander Duff, Pioneer of Missionary Education 

By William Paton, M.A. With Portrait. 5s. net. 

“ This is a vivid, well-informed and exhilarating book. To read it is an inspira- 
tion.” — Sir Michael Sadler, in the Church Missionary Review. 

“This book will give a new idea of Alexander Duff, of the real greatness of the 
man, the magnitude of his labours, and the extent of his influence not only in India 
but also at home. It will show our young people the nobility and opportunities of a 
missionary's life." — U.F.C. Record. 

Francis Coillard : A Wayfaring Man 

By Edward Shillito. With Portrait. 5s. net. 

“In the Life of Henry Martyn, by Constance E. Padwick, the S.C.M. opened its 
‘ Modern Series ' with a biography of enrapturing power and rare literary distinction. 
Mr Shillito’s work is not inferior to Miss Padwick’s — higher praise it is impossible to 
give. . . . Mr Shillito’s excellent book ought to circulate in thousands." — British 

Robert Morrison : A Master-Builder 

By Marshall Broomhall, M.A. With Portrait. 5s. net. 

Robert Morrison was the pioneer Protestant missionary to the great closed land of 
China. His greatness can be judged from his perseverance under baffling difficulties, 
his courage in loneliness, his skill in translation, his far-sighted statesmanship in 
planning for later days. On the foundations he laid, the Christian Church of China 
has arisen. 

The Gospel and International Relations 

By J. W. Coutts, M.A. 4s. net ; paper, 2s. 6d. net. 

" A timely and valuable utterance written in refreshingly convincing and uncon- 
ventional language." — U.F.C. Record. 

“ There are none of the feeble platitudes that are so easy to produce on such a 
subject. The thinking is clear and sane, and its expression restrained and pointed 
by frequent humour. And, above all, its review of the course of history in Christian 
times is both illuminating and enriching.” — Expository Times. 



The Wonders of the Kingdom. 

A Study of the Miracles of Jesus. By G. R. H. Shafto, author 
of The Stories of the Kingdom. 4s. 6d. net ; paper, 3s. net. 

“ The results of wide reading and keen and persistent search after the truth are evident on 
every page.” — The Wesleyan Methodist. 

The Abiding Presence 3S . net. 

A book which should be valuable not only for personal use, but to those who have to conduct 
meetings on these lines. A useful companion volume to A Book of Prayers for Students. 

“The missionary intercessions for Africa, China, and India are the best of their kind that we 
have seen, and the most complete.” — Church Missionary Review. 

“ A singularly beautiful collection of Meditations and Prayers of a devotional and missionary 
character.”— 'The Record. 

Visions of Hope and Fear 

A Study of the Book of Revelation and its Message for To-day. 
By George W. Thorn, author of The Prophets of Israel and their 
Message for To-day. 5s. net. 

The Book of Revelation has suffered much at the hands of many expositors. To most people 
it is more of a puzzle than an inspiration. Written for those who have no time or opportunity 
for close and detailed study, Mr Thorn’s chapters are not only of fascinating interest, but 
convey the abiding spiritual worth of the book for the modern man. 

Modern Discipleship and what it Means 

By Canon E. S. Woods, M.A., author of Everyday Religion. 
Fifth Edition entirely revised. 5s. net. 

A companion volume to Everyday Religion , and a book that has proved its usefulness to 
thousands of readers. It is difficult to discuss the problems of personal religion— the meaning 
of faith and prayer, the value of the Bible, the building of character, and the like — without 
seeming unreal. But these chapters are of the kind that help — simple, untechnical and practical 
in their counsel. 

44 Canon Woods has done well to re-issue the book and has by revision brought it up to date. 
. . . Those who know the earlier edition require no recommendation of the book’s value, and 
those who do not may be reminded that for a five shilling volume to attain five editions is the 
very best proof of its practical helpfulness.” — The Record. 

Everyday Religion 

By Canon E. S. Woods, M.A. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 
Cloth, 5s. net ; paper, 3s. net. 

Contents : The Problem of Living Together — Sharing Life — Christianity and Work 
— Money — Thought— Beauty — Recreation — Sex — Health, etc. 

“ He makes Christianity a living force, a great adventure, a promising proposition, not a dead 
creed. No one can read this book without being stimulated to some effort." — Aberdeen Journal. 

Visit our Bookroom at 32 Russell Square. All 
our books, and a selection of those of other 
Publishers, can be examined and purchased there