"The simple and natural character of our civilization, the peaceable nature of our people, above all, the institution of the family, itself a little state—a political, social, and economic unit—these and other facts have rendered us independent of government control to an extent which to Europeans may seem incredible. Neither the acts nor the omissions of the authorities at Pekin have any real or permanent effect on the life of our masses, except so far as they register the movements of popular sentiment and demand. Otherwise, as you foreigners know to your cost, they remain a dead letter. The government may make conventions and treaties, but it cannot put them into effect, except in so far as they are endorsed by public opinion.... Our fundamental institutions are no arbitrary inventions of power, they are the form which the people have given to their lives. No government created and no government would think of modifying them.... Law, in a word, is not with us a rule imposed from above; it is the formula of the national life, and its embodiment in practice precedes its inscription in a code."
Referring to the political disputes between China and Europe, another Chinese writer says:
"When first your traders came to China it was not at our invitation; yet we received them, if not with enthusiasm, at least with tolerance. So long as they were content to observe our regulations we were willing to sanction their traffic, but always on the condition that it should not disturb our social and political order. To this condition, in earlier days, your countrymen consented to conform, and for many years, in spite of occasional disputes, there was no serious trouble between them and us. The trouble arose over a matter in regard to which you yourselves have hardly ventured to defend your conduct. A considerable part of your trade was the commerce in opium. The use of this drug, we observed, was destroying the health and the morals of our people, and we therefore prohibited the trade. Your merchants, however, evaded the law; opium was smuggled in, till at last we were driven to take the matter into our own hands and to seize and destroy the whole stock of the forbidden drug. Your government made our action an excuse for war. You invaded our territory, exacted an indemnity, and took from us the island of Hong Kong. Was this an auspicious beginning? Was it calculated to impress us with a sense of the justice and fair play of the British nation? Years went on; a petty dispute about the privileges of the flag—a dispute in which we still believe that we were in the right—brought us once more into collision with you. You made the unfortunate conflict an excuse for new demands. In conjunction with the French you occupied our capital and imposed upon us terms which you would never have dared to offer to a European nation. We submitted because we must; we were not a military power. But do you suppose our sense of justice was not outraged? Or later, when every power in Europe, on some pretext or other, has seized some part of our territory, do you suppose because we cannot resist that we do not feel?"
These passages, one-sided though they may be, give us some idea of what the Chinese think of Europe, of the politics of the West, and of our civilization as a whole, and we cannot be greatly surprised that the yellow empire looks upon us as its greatest enemy. From the time that our first trading vessels touched the coasts of China, closely followed by men-of-war, the Chinese have been on the losing side, both economically and politically. One great Power after another came upon the scene of action, and seized and occupied provinces, many of them larger than their own European dominions. When a Chinese schoolboy of today studies the map of his country, and considers how much smaller it has become in the course of the last hundred years, how can it fail to make him sad?
Almost ever since the victorious English navy first made its appearance at Hong Kong, foreign Powers have been occupied in tearing away pieces from the empire. Russia owns the whole northern portion of the land, and with one stroke of the pen Count Muravieff has torn from China and incorporated into the Russian Empire the gigantic Amur district, or, as it is now called, Eastern Siberia, the area of which is almost larger than that of the whole of Central Europe. Korea, once a vassal state, is practically governed by Japan, while Tonking and Annam have become French colonies.
Besides suffering these territorial losses China has been compelled to pay heavy damages after each war. In order to procure these moneys fresh taxes have to be levied, so that it may be said with truth that every son of the land—apart from the ignominy put upon his national pride—has personally to bear some part of the burden laid upon his country. Such was the condition of things at the time of the riots in 1900, and feelings have not greatly altered since then, although on the surface all appears smooth and quiet. The recent war between Russia and Japan has roused the people afresh; and do we wonder at the exultation which fills the masses of the yellow race, now that one of its nations at last appears to be getting the better of its white opponents?
*****
Will China, in case of need, unite with Japan to destroy the common enemy? Will the Chinese seek retaliation for what they consider to have been an injustice done to them, and which they evidently have not forgotten? It is hardly likely—at any rate, not just yet. Japan and China are now farther apart than one would think possible, considering their close geographical vicinity, and the cultural analogy which till recently existed between them.
Looked at from a distance, and when one does not know all the circumstances, certain kindred features may stand out prominently; but the likeness vanishes when one comes to live amongst them. As a matter of fact, a greater dissimilarity can hardly be imagined than that which separates China from Japan. The difference may be traced throughout their past and present histories. Corporeal build and manner of thought, state organization, government and system of education, all were different. Their similarity begins and ends in the basis from which they both started, namely, the old Chinese civilization founded on Buddhist principles, and early borrowed by Japan from China. The Nippon of the past had no national culture. From China, across Korea, Japan received the doctrines of Buddha, of Confucius, of Mencius, or Thao. From China also came the first scholars, artists, and writers. What to us are the Greek and Latin classics the writings of the old Chinese academicians are to Japan. Upon them the Japanese have based their views of life; from them their artists received their inspiration, and the ideas conceived in China found expression in Japanese literature. As with us Latin, so in Japan Chinese is the language of ancient literature. It is probably owing to this circumstance that so many erroneous views exist in the West concerning the mutual relationship of these two Eastern nations. They are always being mistaken the one for the other, their virtues and failings confused, their good and bad points confounded.
Formerly everything that came from the borders of the Yellow Sea was simply called "chinoiserie," and now in the same way everything that arrives from there is called Japanese. It would seem as if Europe even now could not distinguish between them; above all, as if we were unable to realize the psychological and metaphysical differences of the two nations. We do not judge by what is essential, real, and original, we only go by outward appearances, by what is conspicuous at first sight.