Communication

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In the editorial column of May 16 the CRIMSON, in a fit of noble fervor exhorting the people to be patriotic and courageous, gives them the haughty warning that, unless they are capable of showing "stamina and bravery" (which the author of the editorial undoubtedly possesses in overflowing exuberance), ten million Americans would be "of not much more value than ten million Chinese. By the stern ethics of nations," he continues, "the weak and the cowardly have no right to endure."

It is difficult to see how the author, brought up in the critical and liberal atmosphere of Harvard, could have chosen, through such apparent implications, to indict the Chinese as a people in this insolent and irresponsible manner. That the army of China, with its obsolete arms and want of training, proved to be inefficient and inferior to its opponents in her recent wars is a fact, but to attribute this without any ground to the reason that the Chinese are "cowardly" can not but be construed as an act of wanton insult of national character. If the Chinese are given the best of equipment and training, as the people are in this country, the question whether they are cowardly can then be decided on the battlefield in a future war. If China should have awakened fifty years earlier, and succeeded in establishing a large modern army and navy and developing her resources, the author of the editorial would not probably rest assured that she could not constitute an equally effective threat as militant Japan is often held to be.

In view of the friendly relations existing between this country and China and the manifold cordial bonds assuring peace between them in the future, one hopes that an actual test of cowardly qualities between these countries will never take place. But the contemptuous indictment involved in the editorial is not only unnecessary and unwarranted, but is most susceptible to interpretations that would easily lead to resentment and national animosity, especially as it forms a specimen--not a representative one, I hope--of opinion from men who have had the best opportunities of education and may guide the future destinies of the nation. C. T. CHU '17.