The attitude of foreigners in China towards the present tragedy is most illuminating. On June 3, the faculty of Yenching University (a missionary college in Peking), composed of British, Americans, Swiss, and Chinese, issued a public statement expressing "profound disquiet at the reported treatment of the Chinese." It went on to say, "We deeply deplore the shooting of the students, and wish to protest against what appears to be too great reliance upon violent measures to meet the present disorders. Regrettable as the incidents are in themselves, they cause us still greater appre- hension as a revelation of a grave underlying situation of estrangement and misunderstanding. It is probably on the foreign side that heavier responsibility for this lack of understanding rests. A few days later a group of thirty British missionaries issued a similar statement which is worth quoting. We desire to express our intense regret that these incidents should have occurred. We should go further. We recognise that the serious situation evoked is largely due to underlying racial animosities. We as Britons admit that we have a large share of blame in the matter."
46
To the best of our knowledge, these two statements represent the considered opinion of the best foreign element. Living outside the Concessions, they are able to look upon the incidents in their true light, firstly because they do not enjoy the extraordinary privileges of those who live in the concessions, and secondly because they are far more in touch with Chinese thought and culture.
When we remember that nowhere else in the world do foreigners form a group by themselves and entertain such intense 44 group feeling," the present lack of solidarity among foreigners is a significant fact which we will do well to emphasise.
The attitude of the foreigners in Shanghai is even more interesting. They have enjoyed their power for so long that they begin to forget that it does not rest on any secure foundation. They have been so accustomed to see the Chinese kicked and beaten by the police and by themselves without any consequences that they are amazed as well as indignant that these people should dare to rise and offer some resistance. They are also in panic, created by their own conscience, for the safety of their own persons and property. This explains the subsequent violent measures taken against the whole of the Chinese population within the Settlement, which included further shooting, wholesale arrests, house-to-house searches, rough handling of the Chinese who happened to pass near the police cordon, and the posting of machine guns by the landed marines. These measures, even more than the shooting incident itself, have roused the intense feeling of the Chinese all over the country and have been responsible for the grave incidents at Hankow and Kiukiang. Mr. Chamberlain, in common with the diplomatic body in Peking, makes a mistake in insisting that the Chinese Government should first stop the agitation, forgetting that the agitation is the result and not the cause of the violent measures mentioned above.
The Chinese Government has so far wisely refrained from interfering with the outbursts of popular feeling, otherwise the situation would have become still more grave. It is true that in a few cities the provincial authorities have prevented demonstrations, as hinted at by Mr. Chamberlain, but these cities are neither so vitally affected by the incidents nor situated in the political and intellectual centres of the nation. Unless and until the foreign authorities realise
(6)
2
$
C
that justice is more important than prestige, and that fair play is more effective than brutal force, the agitation is bound to continue and to spread, and the Chinese Government, which tries to suppress popular feeling by administrative means, before it has obtained some satisfaction from the Foreign Powers, will surely have its days numbered. And if the present Government should yield to the insistence of the Powers to stop the agitation, the inevitable disastrous result would be seized upon and proclaimed to the world as one of the many proofs that China is unable to utilise the opportunity given her by the Powers to set her own house in order. It is significant to note that so far no disorder has taken place against foreigners living in the interior, but it is precisely in the foreign Concessions, such as Kiukiang and Hankow, where there are foreign controlled police and troops, that serious incidents have taken place.
Lastly a word is needed to enlighten the British public upon the subject of Bolshevism in China. It is an old trick to label any movement by a well-known and unpopular catchword in order to disguise the real issue. There is, of course, a certain amount of Bolshevik propa- ganda in China, just as there is in England, but the Chinese are just as much Bolsheviks as the English. We must first of all define our terms. If by Bolshevism it is meant the strong agitation for the revision of the obnoxious treaties which have their origin eighty years ago, or the widespread discontent mentioned by Mr. Chamberlain, we must frankly admit that the Chinese are Bolsheviks; on the other hand, if it is meant the particular principles of Communism as practised in Soviet Russia, then we must emphatically deny the accusation in any case. It is just as preposterous to assert that the present trouble is the outcome of Bolshevik propaganda as it is to say that the students stormed the police station with the view to capture the arms therein. Let the British public consider the facts without prejudice. The strike and boycott in Shanghai are far from being confined to the students and labourers; the whole merchant class has joined the movement for three weeks. All the shops and banks in the Settlement have closed their doors as a protest against the outrage. It is estimated that the loss per day amounts to over 300,000 pounds sterling. Does anybody seriously think that shrewd and hardheaded men would be willing to sacrifice their earnings and livelihood at the bidding of the Bolshevik school-boys and factory coolies? We do not deny, of course, that there may be Bolshevik sympathisers among the strikers, but that is no reason to characterise the whole movement as Bolshevik. Besides, it is up to the anti-Bolshevik people to do something to discredit Bolshevik propaganda. They tell us that we can expect no justice or equity from the capitalistic and imperialistic Governments; the best way to refute the accusation is to render justice and equity where they are already overdue. The Shanghai Municipal Council is the best friend of the Bolsheviks; for the action of the Shanghai police on May 30 and the days that followed is the best piece of Bolshevik propaganda that has ever been carried out in the Far East.
LO WEN KAN, Ex-President of the Supreme
Court of Peking.
V. K. TING, Honorary Director of the
Geological Survey.
HU SHIH, Professor of Philosophy, National
University of Peking,
K. L. YEN, Professor of Physics, National
University of Peking.
(7)
501
I