No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
In the past, the principal criterion of a capacity for independence seems to have been the ability to foment such forces of violence and potential insurrection as to make the cost of maintaining external political control greater than the controlling power could bear. The real question has been, not whether the subject people were able to stand alone, but whether the efforts necessary for keeping them in subjection conformed to national policy. While the maintenance of such control has invariably been justified by reference to “the white man's burden” and a “sacred trust of civilization,” the nature of this rationalization is sharply challenged by an examination of the actual instances when the time has been found ripe for a shifting of the “burden” to more willing shoulders. It has almost invariably followed upon outbreaks of such violent disorder, if not actual insurrection, as to make it inexpedient for the controlling power to attempt to maintain the status quo. If complete independence is not granted, some concessions of local autonomy and administrative reorganization placate the disaffected elements and postpone the evil day of final settlement.
1 Since writing the above, there has come to my attention a partial treatment of this question from the point of view of its bearing on the Chinese situation, namely, Holcombe, A. N., The Chinese Revolution (Cambridge, 1930), passim and especially pp. 32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Act of August 29, 1916. U. S. Compiled Statutes (1918), pp. 575-593.
3 See President Coolidge's veto on April 6, 1927, of Philippine bill proposing referendum on question of independence; also, report of Carmi M. Thompson, Senate Doc. 180, 69th Congress, 2nd Session.
4 Ibid.
5 Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1918, Cd. 9109), pp. 277-278.
6 “The Working of the Mandates,” Yale Review (1930), XIX, p. 246Google Scholar.
7 Cf. Martin, W., “L'Ira à Genève,” Journal de Genève, Nov. 11, 1930Google Scholar; La Syrie, Nov. 19, 1930.
8 Cf. Miller, D. H., The Drafting of the Covenant (New York, 1928), pp. 164–137Google Scholar.
9 Such problems as these are inseparably connected with the question, already discussed, of the determination of the ultimates to be accepted in our definition of ability.
10 “Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group,” in this Review, XIX, pp. 635–760 (Nov., 1925)Google Scholar.
11 “Measurement of Opinion,” Jour. Abnormal Psych., XXII, pp. 415–430 (Jan., 1928)Google Scholar.
12 For an illuminating example of an attempt to meet this problem, see the report of the King-Crane Commission appointed by President Wilson to ascertain the wishes of the people of the Near East. Editor and Publisher, LV, No. 27, 2nd Section, Dec. 2, 1922Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.