4 THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH

CULTURAL APPROACHES

HOW DIFFERENT WAS Japan's cultural approach from those of the United States and Great Britain in the 1920S? Was the same pattern of Sino­ Japanese interaction reflected in Sino-American and Sino-British interaction during this period? In analyzing the American situation, the chapter first focuses on Sino-American interaction and then examines American views on how the remission could be best used. The British case is then examined in a similar fashion, followed by a comparison of the two ap­ proaches.

THE AMERICAN APPROACH, 1924-1931

The Second American Remission and Sino-American Interaction

In December 1908, the United States remitted a portion of its Boxer indem­ nity to support an educational program comprised of the Chinese Educa­ tional Mission and T singhua College. While this program continued into the 1920S, there were also calls for the United States to remit the remaining portion of its indemnity for similar purposes. This movement for total re­ mission was actively advocated by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela­ tions Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge. With the backing of the State De­ partment, Lodge introduced a resolution for total remission in May 1921. Although the resolution was passed by the Senate in August, it was stalled The American and British Cultural Approaches 93 in the House, whose members feared that approving such an act might en­ courage the European powers involved in World War I to press the United States for a. similar waiving of their war debts.l When the fear of such a linkage gradually ebbed over the next two years, Lodge re-introduced the remission resolution into Congress in December 1923. Hearings by the House Foreign Relations Committee were conducted from March 31 to April 2, 1924, after which the H?use took up the issue on May 7 and the Senate on May 12. Passed by both the House and Senate, President Calvin Coolidge subsequently signed the resolution on May 21, 1924. The resolution stated that besides the sum of II,961,121.76 dollars, which the United States had earlier agreed to remit to China beginning in December 1908, the United States would now make another remission of the remaining balance of the indemnity amounting to 6,137,552.90 dollars in order to further "develop the educational and other cultural activities of China."2 Like the first American remission, the Japanese remission, and the British remission, the second American remission was motivated by self-interest, international cultural rivalries, and a blend of ethnocentrism, moralism, and idealism, as reflected in the congressional debates over the remission. On the side of self-interest, David P. Dyer of Missouri supported the remission be­ cause this would foster an amicable atmosphere between the United States and China, which would "redound to the good of American commerce to the extent of many hundreds of millions of dollars." Similarly, and more cynically, Thomas L. Blanton of Texas saw the remission as a way of bring­ ing about "nothing but commercial peace." Edward E. Browne of Wisconsin was confident that China, with its vast population, would soon be a great world power, ·and it was thus imperative to gain the goodwill of the Chinese people, which "outside of the splendid purpose of education ... would amply pay us in remitting this amount." For Tom Connally of Texas, Cpina's dec­ laration of war against Germany soon after America declared war in 1917 was a political benefit brought about partly by the remission act of 1908, and he supported further remission because this would constitute the "best invest­ ment" that America could make for "international goodwill at trifling cost."3 Equally striking were the constant references to what the other powers were doing with respect to their remissions. Citing passages from a report presented by John V. A. MacMurray, chief of the Division of Far Eastern