artificial prop or bars. A spiritual world took the place of the strait walls and ghettos of their former physical environment. So in the race problem in America, we may ask with regard to this question of incompatibility of whites and blacks: Just what degree of social compatibility is absolutely essential to group contact today? And in answering this question we must realize that not only does the modern world spell increased and increasing contact of groups and nations and races, but that indeed race or group segregation is impossible.

This brings us to our third question, Is race separation practicable? People say very often with regard to the Negro that the Pilgrims of England found a place for liberty when they could not get it at home; why then does not the Negro do the same of his own motion and will? And then they explain it by a shrug and a reminder that one set of people were English and the others are Negroes. Flattering as this is to the sayers, yet this does not explain all. Today we have in the world growing race contact. The world is shrinking together; it is finding itself neighbor to itself in strange, almost magic degree. No one has done more for increasing this' contact of the nations than we here in America. We not only brought Negroes here in defiance of law, right, and religion, but we have pounded masterfully, almost impudently, at the gates of China and Japan. Europe has insisted upon the opening of Africa. Now when the world suddenly appears open, with chance of access for all to all parts, we find ourselves standing amazed before a curious exemplification of the old adage, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"! If the world can enter Asia, why cannot Asiatics enter the world? We could of course in case of a helpless nation like China chivalrously refuse to answer the question and bar out Chinese. But when it comes to a question of Japan and Japanese guns, the dilemma before the modern world is somewhat startling. Just so with the Philippines. Here is a group of colored folks half a world away, yet the United States is not content until it goes, annexes them, and rules them according to its own ideas. Now if these things are so, what chance is there for a new nation to establish itself, especially if it be a colored nation, on any spot in the world worth having? And is it going to be possible in the future for races to remain segregated or to escape contact or domination simply by retiring to themselves? Certainly it is not. Race segregation in the future is going to be impossible primarily because these races are needed more and more in the world's economy. Mr. Stone has often expressed the cheerful hope that the Negro would be supplanted by the white man as worker in the South. But the thing does not happen. On the contrary there are today more Negroes working steadily and efficiently than ever before in the world's history. The world is beginning to work for the world. This work is necessary. A new standard of national efficiency is coming. And that efficiency is marked by the way in which a great modern

advanced nation can be neighborly to the rest of the world. It is the counterpart to the sort of rivalry for the world-empire that went on when France and England made a hundred years' struggle for empire in America and India. And while we in America may sneer at neighbors, who are neither as rich or impudent or lucky as we, we can also, if we will, remark that the English again are learning certain things in advance of the rest of the world. They are learning how to get on in peace and amity with colored races; how to treat them as men and gain their friendship and gain the results of their work and skill and brain. And if the United States expects to take her place among the new nations beside England and France, the nations which first are going to solve this problem of race contact, then certainly she has got right here in her own land to find out how to live in peace and prosperity with her own black citizens. If she does that, she will gain an advantage over the rest of the world in the development of the earth which will be simply inestimable in the new commerce and in the new humanity. If she does not, she will always have in her contact with the rest of the world not only the absolute dislike and distrust of the darker two thirds, but a tremendous moral handicap such as she met when she asked Russia to stop her atrocities and it was answered with perfect truth that they did not compare with the barbarities committed right here in the land of the free. We may therefore justly conclude, first, that the Negro is not going to submit any longer than he must to the present serfdom and the disgraceful and humiliating discrimination; secondly, that while we do not know as much of race differences as we may know if we study this problem as we ought, we certainly do know that the chances are that most men in this world can be civilized, and that the world of races just as the world of individuals does not consist of a few aristocrats and chosen people and a mass of dark serfs and slaves. And that thirdly, any dream of separating the races in America or of separating the races of the world is at present not only impracticable but is against the whole trend of the age, and that what we ought to do in America is to seek to bind the races together rather than to accentuate differences. No part of the world could play a greater rôle in the future moral development of the world than the South, if it would. And while today there are few signs that the South realizes this, yet may we not hope that this will be the case before another generation passes? Finally, rhetoric like that quoted by Mr. Stone is not in itself of particular importance, except when it encourages those Philistines who really believe that Anglo-Saxons owe their pre-eminence in some lines to lynching, lying, and slavery, and the studied insult of their helpless neighbors. God save us from such social philosophy!

RESPONSE BY MR. ALFRED H. STONE

I had not expected to say anything in conclusion, until the reading of Professor Bassett's paper. All the other papers agree substantially with my

fundamental propositions. Only Professor Bassett takes issue with me as to the normal Anglo-Saxon attitude toward the negro. He cites certain North Carolina instances to sustain his contention. Here he falls into a very common error. The relations of which he speaks are characteristic of many communities in which the number of negroes is small as compared with the white population, combined with a certain primitive social state. To the student of race relations there is nothing novel in these North Carolina cases. I could duplicate them in Louisville, Richmond, New Orleans— in fact, in almost any southern community in early days. As contrasted with later and present conditions, they simply represent the difference between a simple and a complex state.

With the increase of population, black and white, and the increased points of contact, there came increased possibilities for friction. Under the constitution of 1790, the state of Pennsylvania did not discriminate against negroes in regard to the suffrage. With the increase of the negro population of the state there developed open manifestations of an antipathy which had hitherto been latent, and then followed discrimination and opposition. By 1829 or 1830 the sentiment against negro suffrage was such that the privilege of voting was specifically restricted to white men in the new constitution adopted about that time. The history of negro suffrage in North Carolina runs parallel to that in Pennsylvania. The same may be said of New York, Connecticut, and other states, and likewise of Cape Colony in South Africa. They all illustrate the force and effect of numbers. And this matter of numerical differences, plus the other reasons which I mention as fundamental, tells the story of differences of racial attitude between different sections of the country, as well as between conditions in the same state or section at different periods. We have but to look at Kansas and see how the increase of negro population, with the normal increase of friction, has compelled the adoption of separate schools for the races in Kansas City, and led to their recommendation for other places in the state.

The suggestion that the Englishman in colonies which contain a large negro population has not the same general attitude toward certain social relations would be news to the white inhabitants of British South Africa. They raised almost as big a row when Khama was entertained by the Duke of Westminster in London as their southern cousins did when Booker T. Washington was entertained by Mr. Roosevelt in Washington. The occasional official social functions in Jamaica stand on a wholly different footing. They also raise another question-one which we have not time to discuss here that of the recognition in Jamaica of the mulatto as a distinct element in the population, on a different basis, in many respects, from the negro.

But I have no quarrel with those who differ from my views. I usually avoid discussing the future. My life work is trying to learn something

about the past and the present-and endeavoring correctly to interpret what I learn. As I look at the history of race relations the world over, it seems to me almost utopian for us to flatter ourselves that we can escape continued race friction in the United States. That is, of course, if we are measuring the future by historical rather than geological periods.

Something has been suggested as to the rights and wrongs involved in the situation, and about what might be if only men would be just and honest, and so forth. My only reply is that I did not come here to discuss ethical questions. I am just now concerned only with the hard, stern, inexorable facts in the case.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ORIENT FOR THE

OCCIDENT

WILLIAM I. THOMAS

The University of Chicago

"2

The Manchus have a saying: "The man who comes from a strange locality is contemptible; the thing which comes from a strange locality is precious." The Mongols have a saying: "The thigh-bone of an elk cannot be fitted into a saucepan, and a stranger does not jibe with a stranger.' And all large groups of men have similar sayings, representing the recognition of a deep-seated sentiment of hostility to outsiders. Strictly speaking this prejudice toward outsiders must be regarded as an organic attitude common not only to mankind but to all animal forms possessing a certain degree of memory, emotion, and gregariousness. This feeling is of course connected with the struggle for life, and is, in fact, primarily based on the instinct of fear.

Gregariousness not only affords objective benefits in the way of solidarity and co-operation, but on the subjective side involves a recognition of likeness between members of the group, and a limitation of affection to those sharing that likeness. The struggle for existence implies a hostile attitude toward the world at large toward all objects which have not by association and co-operation become a part of the group personality. In a group whose existence depends on its solidarity, signs of solidarity in the way of similar appearance, behavior, and sentiments give a feeling of security, and any unlikeness is a sign of danger. It is not necessarily felt to be such, but genetically it is such.

A group having a common origin and a common history must have to some degree a memory, a consciousness, and a personality in common, and common emotional reactions. In

1 Rochet, Sentences, Maximes et Proverbes Mantchoux et Mongols, p. 62. Ibid., p. 111.