If nations and men could practise magnanimity of this kind toward one another, especially toward their erstwhile rivals and enemies, the world would be transformed in a single generation. Vindictiveness only adds to the sum of bitterness and misery already in the world; and in the long run it injures as much the nation that practises it as the nation that suffers it. The whole world is the loser by malevolence, as it is the gainer by magnanimity. Speaking recently of our late enemies, Ernst Kahn has said that the help granted them must be both of a material and a moral kind. In their desperate condition, he says, they must once more hear a kindly word from beyond the frontiers. Their country is sick unto death; and if she is not speedily healed, she will become a corpse "which will infect with its poisons all the surrounding countries." So ghastly a prospect need not be feared if nations learn in time the way of David, or better still, of Jesus.

The Sway of Religion and Ritual in Business in Japan Religion has its spontaneities and its rites.

An example of the former is given by Dr. William Elliot Griffis in one of his books. In this he tells of a long period of cloudy weather and rain, during which the sun had been entirely hidden; but suddenly, at eventide, the sun broke gloriously through the clouds. Immediately the houses in Tokio were emptied of their inhabitants, who all and with one accord in the streets joined in the worship of the luminary that is fabled to be the ancestor of their ruler.

An example of the ritual of religion entering and affecting the business life is told by the Rev. C. K. Cumming in From Far Japan.

"As I was going down the street the other day I saw a large crowd gathered in front of the main postoffice, and seemingly waiting with a good deal of impatience for something to take place. Just opposite the postoffice they were putting up a large three story building which was to be a bank. The

frame work had already been completed.

"On looking up I saw quite a large number of people on the roof of the building which was more or less flat. Among them were ten or fifteen Buddhist priests in their handsome robes of green and purple and yellow silk. There were also about the same number of bank officials dressed mostly in foreign style. There were also as many, if not more, coolies in their every day apparel. On the center of the roof there were many decorations and streamers of red, white and blue.

"The priests were engaged in some kind of ritualistic service, dedicating the building to some god, doubtless the god of wealth, and the bank officials were also at times taking part in this service. It seemed strange to see these men in foreign dress taking part in these heathen rites. You associate foreign style of dress with more liberal ideas and with freedom from these superstitions. After these elaborate rites had been completed, the people on the roofpriests, bank officials, and coolies alike— threw down to the waiting crowd below large numbers of rice cakes. It was this that the crowd had been waiting for. I was told by some one in the crowd that the people believed that there was some efficacy in these cakes and so there was a great struggle for them.

Ar

"I mentioned having seen the above rites to my evangelist and he went on to tell me some other things about this bank which may be interesting. The bank opens daily (except Sunday) at eight o'clock, and about five or ten minutes before that time all the officials and employees of the bank gather together to have a religious service. ranged in order they stand with hands grasped in front of them, which they shake very vigorously, saying many times, 'Nikoniko ogamu,' which means, 'Laughingly we worship.' Then they draw in the breath three times but they do not blow out the last breath, and then they say, 'Uchu no Tai-Rei wo suikomu,'' We draw in the great spirit of the universe.' Then they rub their foreheads outwards with both hands and say many times, 'Shintai kenko,' 'Health to the body.' Then they rub the cheeks in a downward direction with both hands, saying Kanai anzen,' 'Peace to the house.' They then rub the edges of the ears downwards many times saying, 'Shobai Hanjo,' 'Success to the business.' Then they throw their hands downwards and outwards very forcibly, saying many times, 'Akuma horominu,' Let the devil be destroyed,' (so that they may do honest work that day). Then they unite together in repeating the following commands:

This day do not lie,
This day do not get angry,
This day do not revile anybody,
This day work with all your might,
This day do not evil, but do right."

Problem

SCRIPTURE LESSON: 1 Sam. 23-24.

WHO COMPOSE OUR POPULATION? In the past one hundred years over thirty-three million strangers from foreign lands have passed through the open portals of the United States and been received into our body politic. They have come from every continent and every race, and have represented every civilized nationality. have been old and young, rich and poor, sick and well, good, bad, and indifferent. They have introduced among us every important religion, all varieties of political convictions, and an uncounted number of languages and dialects, customs, beliefs, and traditions.

They

This is the most stupendous population movement that the world has ever witnessed. In point of numbers and rapidity the invasions of the Goths, the Vandals, or the Huns, the colonizing activities of Greece, the imperial expansion of Rome, the victorious sweep of the Mohammedan hosts, and the onward.march of the Crusaders all pale into insignificance. More people have come to the United States in a century than were living in all Europe two thousand years ago. More have come in a single year-probably twice as many-than the entire Indian population north of Mexico at the time of the first arrival of the white men. And yet we take it very calmly. Most of us are less thrilled by the immigration movement that is going on around our very doors than we are by reading about the exploits of Attila the Hun or the expulsion of the Huguenots from France.

The explanation, of course, lies in the dulness of that which is familiar. Immigration is commonplace-therefore it does not impress us. It took the cataclysm of the Great War to wake us up to even a partial realization of the significance of what was taking place, and what was destined to take place in the future.

The

fact that nearly fifteen per cent. of our entire population were foreign-born indi viduals was transformed from a dry piece of census statistics into a fact of vital meaning. We began to see that perhaps the situation called for something more than a good-natured, tolerant indifference.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS FACT: Even yet, however, with all the agitation which has developed in the last three or four years, it is doubtful if the mass of the American people realizes that we are living in the midst of a great social phenomenon which not only numerically, but in respect of its significance to human welfare and the development of civilization, equals or surpasses many of the critical and dramatic events of history. We read of the great revolutions, reformations, and decisive battles of the past, and we think how wonderful it must have been to be a vital factor in one of the determinative crises of history. We need to realize that every American citizen has an opportunity, and a duty as well, to play his part in determining the outcome of a movement no less important than those of the past. What we do about immigration will have a profound effect upon the whole future progress of mankind.

We need to realize further that what is to be done must be begun at once, and maintained continuously with unflagging activity and zeal. The immigration movement will not wait for us to deliberate, and debate, and experiment. Inaction now will pro

duce results which no amount of future activity can correct, just as we of to-day are paying the penalty for the failure of our fathers to take certain salutary steps in the past. And we have a greater responsibility and less excuse for inaction than our fathers, for they did not have the resources of social science which, partial and inexact tho it still is, nevertheless can afford us certain broad rules and principles for our guidance. History will not repeat itself in this particular. When the modern immigration movement, which includes Canada,

South America, Australia, and some other sections as well as the United States, is over the great population movements will cease so far as we can predict. The human species will have been distributed over the earth's surface in a manner which will probably be approximately final. Nothing, accordingly, can be of greater importance than that immigration should be controlled with an eye to permanent future results rather than to the demands of the immediate present.

Malthus remarks, somewhere in his works, that there is no fallacy more prevalent and more dangerous than the assumption that what is good to a certain extent is therefore good to any extent. That is a caution which it is well to keep in mind in studying immigration affairs. Another fallacy, equally pernicious in this connection, is the assumption that what was true in the past must also be true in the present and the future. It is easy for people, because they do not see any evil effects of our past immigration policy, to conclude that the same immigration policy may safely be continued indefinitely into the future. The truth is that there are a good many social maladjustments in our society which are more or less directly traceable to immigration and our policy toward it; but even if there were none, that fact would be no guarantee against undesirable results in the future. For in society, just as anywhere else, results are determined by combinations of conditions, and if the conditions change the results are bound to change.

CHANGED TYPES OF IMMIGRANTS: It is worth while to consider some of the particulars in which the conditions which affect the immigration situation have changed in the United States within half a century. First of all, there have been marked changes in immigration itself. For the first three quarters of the nineteenth century the sources of our immigration lay almost entirely in northwestern Europe. This meant that by means of immigration we were reconstructing here on American soil a race composed of virtually the same elements as were represented in the original settlers of the country and the founders of the independent nation. No new problems of race mixture or of the adaptation of widely divergent national characteristics were involved.

Now, however, the great mass of our immigrants comes from southern and eastern Europe. Without attempting the futile task of passing upon the inherent superiority or inferiority of these groups, the fact remains that they represent races and nationalities radically different from the characteristic American type. They, therefore, introduce problems of assimilation much more complicated and difficult than those presented by the older immigrants. At the same time the volume of immigration has increased enormously, and the proportion of our population which is of foreign birth or foreign parentage has continuously increased.

Other changes in the character of immigration are the increased importance of the economic motive, the tendency to return to Europe after a few years' residence, the removal of the difficulties of transportation so that little courage or hardihood is required, and the preponderance of males in the middle-age groups.

CHANGES IN THE SITUATION: Changes of no less significance have taken place in our own economic and social situation. Most important, probably, is the disappearance of our free land, and the accompanying transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy. Along with this has gone a phenomenal growth of cities, and a congestion of population in certain sections. Socially there has been a great widening of the gap between the extremes of wealth and poverty, and an intensified social stratification. The increased mechanization of production has steadily reduced the importance of labor and the attendant power of the laborer to demand recognition and advantages for himself. The skilled laborer has been progressively displaced by the elaborate machine, which requires the attendance of only the lowest grade of labor. labor has been more and more supplied by foreigners, while the American workman has withdrawn into other activities. Com. mon labor has thus become stigmatized as unworthy of a real American, and fit only for the " Sheeny," the "Hunky" or the "Wop." This process has been hastened by the diminishing birth-rate of the native population, which is itself partly the result of immigration.

This

As a result of these factors, and others which they will suggest, the natural, spontaneous, unconscious or subconscious con

tacts between the native and the foreigner, which abounded in the first half of the nineteenth century, have almost completely disappeared. The alien is a creature apart, whose daily activities move in a circle which intersects that of the native American, even his own employer, at few points or none.

July 11-The Obstacles to
Assimilation

SCRIPTURE LESSON: Read John 17: 11,

21-23.

Americanization is the unification of the people of the United States. Unification does not imply standardization. It does not mean that every individual is to be reduced to a dead level of identity. That is not only impossible, but if possible would be undesirable. Unification does require that there shall be a sufficient degree of sympathy and harmony of ideals and purposes, enough community of feeling and understanding, so that social standards may be actual and positive, and social movements proceed consistently and intelligently.

UNITY AS GROWTH: The importance of unity in a society varies directly with the degree of its self-government. In other words, unity is essential to democracy. If a structure is progressing as the result of exterior forces, there may be an unlimited diversity in the particles of which it is composed. But if it is growing through the action of its own internal force, there must necessarily be uniformity in the constituent particles. If a concrete wall is being constructed, pieces of granite, marble, quartz, hard coal or iron may be thrown into the mixer. But if a coral reef is building itself there must be complete harmony of character and action on the part of each minute organism. So in the social field, an autocracy may be built and maintained upon the groundwork of unsympathetic, uncongenial, and even hostile elements of population. In fact, autocracies fear unity, and "Divide in order to conquer" is one of the rules of empire. But a democracy can exist only when the elements of population are sufficiently united by bonds of common feeling and understanding, so that harmonious action may result.

THE ASSIMILATION PROBLEM: The process whereby a society receives foreign elements and reduces them to the requisite

degree of uniformity is called in general assimilation. The analogy is to the physiological process by which the body of an organism receives food substances from without and reduces them to such forms that they can be used to build up the body itself. This analogy is a true and a helpful one, particularly as it serves to illustrate the fact that not identity or standardization is required, but consistency. The body is composed of a variety of very different substances, but they all work together, and each plays its appropriate part. Some food materials take longer to assimilate than others. Some substances which enter the alimentary canal can not be assimilated at all. If such substances are received in too great quantities trouble results.

The United States, as a result of the immigration of the past and present, is confronted with the most complicated, extensive and difficult problem of assimilation which has ever concerned any real nation.

The pseudo-nation of Austria-Hungary was the result of the artificial binding together of certain groups which had nothing in common. In that case assimilation proved to be an impossibility. In the United States assimilation has seemed to take place with a rapidity and thoroughness that amazed observers in Europe perhaps even more than the Americans themselves. This appearance of assimilation resulted in lulling any fears that arose from time to time as to the outcome of the immigration movement, and in confirming the attitude of indifference with which our people as a whole have regarded this movement. This attitude has been reflected in the action of Congress, which put off assuming any control of immigration until the year 1882, and then took the ground that all that was necessary was to exercise some care in selecting immigrants on the basis of certain broad characteristics of desirability, and excluding those which did not measure up to certain tests. The traditional attitude of the people of the United States has been to assume that there was some magical potency about their country whereby assimilation took place with a completeness and speed which they would not for a moment have expected or believed possible in any other country.

A part of this apparent remarkable assimilation has been actual. We have, in

truth, accomplished wonders in the direction of harmonizing diverse groups, on account of the newness, vigor, and adaptability of our nation, the extent and richness of the country, the liberality and enthusiasm of the people, and the freedom and elasticity of our institutions. No other country could have done as much. But at the same time there have grown up enormous unassimilated elements, the existence of which was undreamed by the average citizen until the war revealed the facts. The present furor over Americanization is a reflex of the realization of the failure of assimilation in the past.

RACIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES: The process of unification involves the elimination of significant differences between the various groups, and the breaking down of the barriers which separate them. These differences, and the barriers which grow out of them, are of two main types. The first includes racial differences, the second national or cultural differences. The positive barriers are race antipathy (often inaccurately called race prejudice) and cultural antipathy. A sound understanding of the problem of assimilation requires a brief examination of these two factors.

Racial characters are those which are transmitted from generation to generation by biological heredity. They are the result of the isolation and separate development of groups of people for long periods under definite climatic and topographical conditions. In time they become fixt in the germplasm, and reappear in successive generations, even tho the individuals are far removed from the original home of the race. Races are varieties of the human species. Race characteristics are primarily physical, including color of skin, eyes, and hair, facial features, head forms, etc. They also include mental or spiritual characteristics in so far as these are associated with physical heredity.

Between different races in their unsophisticated state there exists almost universally a strong race antipathy. The roots of this feeling run far back in human development, and the feeling itself seems to be genuinely instinctive. It is felt probably by almost all individuals, even in the most civilized societies. It rises spontaneously, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. It can not be removed by a mere act of the will, tho its strength may perhaps be affected by

a long process of discipline. Obviously, race antipathy will be aroused only when the racial differences are sufficiently marked to be observable.

National or cultural characteristics are those connected with the civilization or so

cial organization of groups. They also develop as a result of group isolation, and are passed on by social heredity. In many cases the boundaries of race and nation are identical, so that the two terms are frequently confused, and cultural antipathy, which is just as real as race antipathy, is often mistaken for race antipathy. This confusion leads to many false conclusions in the matter of assimilation, for the principles of race antipathy and cultural antipathy are very different.

An individual can not change his race. What he is racially at birth he must be all his life. And if he mates with one of the same race the offspring will display the same race characteristics. The influence of a new environment in changing race characteristics operates very slowly, if at all. Therefore, time alone will not suffice to break down barriers between groups which rest directly upon racial differences. This justifies nations in proceeding with extreme caution in the admission of foreigners who are of distinctly different races. The only way in which race differences may disappear is by the physical blending or amalgamation of the races-for races can be blended-and the formation of a new or mixed race, a process to which race antipathy itself is a serious obstacle.

National or cultural characteristics are the things which distinguish social systems from each other, and include such matters as language, religion, dress, recreation, food, family relations, government and countless other products of human social evolution. These are of an importance and value in our lives which we can not appreciate until we begin to study them carefully, and not fully even then. They enter into the very fiber of our being, and come to represent the major part of what we cherish, respect, and regard as beautiful or right. Even the moral code itself is a part of the cultural equipment. It is community of feeling and sympathy in matters of this kind that constitutes genuine nationality. The binding sentiment which Professor Giddings has called "consciousness of kind" is much more