#?
#P[80]&#A*FAmerican^ Studies^ in^ China^ #FKVol.2#FS,^ 1995/_@#a$#P[100]
#J[-100]
#T3THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION$
AND CHINA#t
#T4ZI Zhongyun#t
	The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) is a familiar name in China Н
and its role has been a controversial issue among Chinese. Н
This article tries to make an objective picture of what RF Н
actually did in relation to China during the thirty and odd years from Н
its inception to the eve of the founding of People's Republic of Н
China, the guiding thinking permeating its activities and the effects Н
of its endeavor. The Н
article also presents the author's own analytical view of the role the Н
Foundation played as part of the cultural aspect of the history of Н
Sino-U.S. relations. Hopefully, such a study will help the Н
understanding of the contemporary Sino-US relations and of America's Н
"China complex".$
The aim of the FR is very simple: "To promote the well-being of Н
mankind throughout the world." Like most other US foundations, it spent Н
the bulk of its money in the United States; but it took on immense Н
undertakings around the world as well. China used to top the list of Н
its expenditure abroad.$

#T4I.  Work in China#t
#FHA. The Peking Union Medical College (PUMC)$#FS
	The RF's largest and best-known program in China in which it Н
took the greatest pride was the creation of the Peking Union Medical Н
College. Among the first group of activities the RF undertook right Н
after its first Trustees' meeting in 1913 was the making of Н
arrangements to find out China's needs in the medical and health Н
fields. This was initiated by John D. Rockefeller Jr. himself who said in Н
relation to China: "...there is a great opportunity, a great need.  Н
Now let us study the situation and see whether there devolves upon Н
this Foundation a responsibility in this particular country"#+[1]. In Н
1914, two Medical Commissions were sent to China successively in Н
addition to the Burton Commission despatched earlier in 1909. On the Н
basis of the detailed reports of these three commissions, the China Н
Medical Board (CMB) was set up and started the work in China centered Н
on medical service. (CMB was at first a branch of the RF, became Н
independent in 1927 and completely separated from RF in 1946).$
#M1The Rockfeller Foundation And China#m
#M2American Studies in China#m
	The RF resolved to make the PUMC a first-rate medical college Н
in conformity with the up-to-date US standard. Under the leadership of Н
Dr. William H. Welch, whose authority made him known as the dean of Н
medical science in the United States, the PUMC modelled after the Н
Johns Hopkins University Medical School in everything. Preparations Н
for building the PUMC began early in 1915 on the basis of the existent Н
Union Medical College in Peking which was jointly set up by six Н
missionary churches in 1906. The actual construction of PUMC started Н
in 1916, and the inauguration ceremony was held in 1921.$
	China was the center of RF's Asia program and received the Н
greatest amount of financial aid -- a total of over бч47m.,-- far Н
surpassing what India, the second biggest recipient country, got, of НКwhich бч44.65249m. was allotted to the Н
building, founding, maintenance and development of this "unique" Н
medical college in the Far East.#+[2] In addition to the PUMC, the Н
China Medical Board also financed some other medical schools founded Н
by other US institutions in China, such as the Qilu (Cheeloo) Medical Н
University in Shandong Province and the Yale-in-China Medical College Н
in Hunan Province, etc.$
	#FHB. Natural Sciences$#FS
	RF's interest in natural sciences was derived from the need of Н
the development of medical science. Consequently, appropriations for Н
universities and colleges were geared mainly toward the departments of Н
biology, chemistry and physics which were related to the medical science. Н
The largest part of support in this regard went to Н
the Yenching University with which a special arrangement was Н
made in 1925 to assume teaching responsibility for preparing medical Н
students and giving a preliminary training to nurses. Н
The RF also Н
helped the establishment of the biological department in Qinghua Н
(Tsing Hua) University by contributing half of the cost (бч41,250) for Н
the construction of the Biology Building in 1929. Other recipients in this Н
field were biology, chemistry and physics departments or pre-med. Н
schools of universities of Fukien Christian, Ginling, Lingnan, Nankai, Н
St. John's, Shantung, Shanghai, Soochow and the National Central Н
University in Nanjing.$
     Projects of special significance in this regard include:$
     --The Zhoukoudian (Chou Kou Tien) excavation and paleontology. The Н
RF and the PUMC had become a party to the excavation of Zhoukoudian Н
right after the initial discoveries of Peking Man in 1926. Under an Н
agreement with the Geological Survey of China 
in 1927, the RF provided it in the subsequent years with Н
funds for joint excavation and study with Н
the PUMC's Anatomy Department headed by Professor Н
Davidson Black, a Canadian anatomist and anthropologist. In 1929-32 Н
the RF appropriated бч80,000 towards human paleontological research in Н
Asia. The RF Н
contribution enabled the establishment of a Cenozoic laboratory in Н
China, which was otherwise impossible due to the high cost of Н
necessary large-scale investigations and which Н
made possible the building of verterate paleontology in Н
China. It was in this work that Pei Wenzhong and Yang Zhongjian, two Н
noted Chinese paleontologists attained their outstanding Н
achievements.#+[3]$
	--Genetics. Early in the 20s, with the abundant funding of the Н
RF and the China Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Н
Culture, genetics education and research started in China--mainly in Н
the Yenching, Nanking and the Soochow universities. 
Yenching also established ties with, first, Н
the Columbia University and, after 1928, the California Institute of Н
Technology for its students and faculty to take part in T. H. Morgan's Н
genetics programs. These people moved to and fro China and America and Н
played an important role in introducing the Morgan school of genetics Н
to China as well as the development of genetics as a specialty of Н
science in China. 
The Nanking University began its contacts with the Agriculture Н
College of the Cornell University in 1925 and conducted researches in НКimproving crop strains with good success. Almost all the PUMC Н
graduates and scholars in 1925-45 received aid from these two Н
foundations at the decisive moments of their research. Many of them, Н
such as Chen Zhen (Ch'en Chen), Tan Jiazhen (T'an Chia-chen), Chen Н
Ziying (Ch'en Tze-ying) and Wu Jingfu (Wu Chin-fu) became forerunners Н
of Chinese genetics, and Li Xianwen (Li Hsien-wen) and Wang Shou in Н
agriculture.#+[4]$
--Botany. The RF also contributed to the development of Н
Botany and especially Taxonomy in China in the 20's and early 30's by Н
funding both the training of researchers in China and abroad and the Н
American botanists to come to China to collect and study specimens in Н
cooperation with their Chinese colleagues. Centers for research and Н
teaching subsidized by the RF were established in Nanjing, Guangzhou and Н
Beijing. Famous Chinese botanists like Chen Huanyong (Woon-young Н
Chun), Hu Xiansu (H.H. Hu) and Zhong Xinxuan (H.H. Chung) all took Н
part in this cooperation.#+[5]$
	#FHC. The Rural Reconstruction and Mass Education Movement$#FS
	This was a project combining natural sciences with social Н
sciences, a project next only to the PUMC in the attention Н
devoted by the RF, although the total expenditure, something around Н
бч2.5m., is no comparison with the figure related to PUMC. Since the Н
inception of the PUMC, both Chinese and Americans concerned had become Н
increasingly aware of the gap between the elitist standard of the Н
college and the practical conditions in China. In 1931 and 1934 Н
Selskar M. Gunn, vice-president of RF presented two reports following Н
his survey trips to China.  Н
In his reports, he strongly recommended that: Н
1) The RF should continue its work in China despite the fluctuating Н
situation; 2) The current program was no longer in touch with the Н
times and that a new and vital program should be started aiming at  Н
the improvement of public health and education level of rural Н
population which made up the overwhelming majority of the Chinese Н
people#+[6]. It happened that in the early 30s, some Chinese Н
intellectuals with reformist ideals started various rural reform Н
movements. The most famous one among them was the Rural Reconstruction Н
Project led by Yan Yangchu (Y.C. James Yen), which had the Н
backing of the Chinese government and was semi-official in nature. Н
Seizing upon the opportunity, the RF started cooperation with this Н
program in 1935 in various ways and continued throughout the years of Н
its presence on the Chinese mainland. Since then, the RF's work in Н
various fields in China including both natural and social sciences Н
were centered around the Rural Reconstruction Project.$
	The Mass Education Movement received the largest amount of Н
#^funding#^^ in this program. The RF, to help train personnel to further the Н
Movement, supported financially a cooperative program in rural Н
reconstruction in North China between the Mass Education Movement, and Н
Colleges of Economic and Political Sciences of Nankai and Yenching Н
Universities . Special appropriation was allocated to the Colleges of Н
Public Affairs and Natural Sciences of the Yenching University for the Н
development of training courses in rural reconstruction. Later, Н
an multi-disciplinary Institute for Rural Reconstruction was Н
established under the Yenching University aiming at training young Н
Chinese for positions in rural administration, rural education, Н
village industry and social and economic positions. With the support Н
of the RF, certain specialties oriented towards the need of rural НКareas were established or strengthened in the universities of Nankai Н
and the National Н
Central.  Support was also given to the government Н
departments concerned, including the State Bureau of Agricultural Н
Research, the Training Administration of Public Health and the Н
creation of Commission of Medical Education under the Ministry of Н
Education. Besides, a special scholarship was founded to train nurses Н
in the PUMC to work in the public health units in rural areas.$
	Following the outbreak of China's War of Resistance Against Н
Japanese Aggression, the RF continued its support of this program the Н
center of which was moved to the Southwest of China, and adapted its Н
work to the hard conditions of war. According to the RF's 1939 report, Н
"With few exceptions, the projects which the Foundation is aiding Н
appear not only to be well established in their new locations but to Н
be working along realistic lines, based not on war economy but on Н
plans for long-time development."  Between 1934 and 1939, the Н
RF spent altogether бч1.5m on the project.#+[7] After 1941, the Н
whole work was moved Н
to Southwest China and despite extremely hard conditions, the RF Н
persisted in making the Mass Education Movement the emphasis of its Н
work in China and in fact, a great part of its contribution to the Н
universities were directly or indirectly related to this Н
program.#+[8]$
	#FHD. Social sciences and humanities$#FS
	The RF began to attach importance to Н
social sciences toward the end of the 20s.  In relation to China, the Н
earliest support in this field was given by the Laura Spelman Н
Rockefeller Memorial Н
in a total of бч140,000 to the Yenching University for the Н
development of social sciences in a period of seven years starting Н
from 1928. The RF took over in 1934 on the eve of the expiration of Н
this aid and Yenching continued to receive regular support in this Н
field since then. Apart from its connection with the rural Н
reconstruction program mentioned above, this support was significant in Н
helping the development of social sciences per se, especially in the Н
following field:$
 	- The building of sociology (including Anthropology in China's Н
case).  The RF helped introduce into China Western anthropology Н
through financing visits to China by such famous anthropologists as Н
Redcliff Brown, Robert Park and Malinowski and putting Chinese Н
sociologists in touch with them. Wu Wenzao, for instance, a forerunner Н
of Chinese sociology, first met Professor Malinowski, then dean of Н
Anthropology at the London School of Economics, at Harvard in 1936 Н
thanks to the arrangement of the RF, and worked with him in Н
England for the two following years. Upon Wu's return in 1938, he Н
founded Н
the Sociology Department at the Yunnan University. Its stations for Н
field work were financed by the RF. Another leading scholar in Н
this field, Prof. Fei Xiaotong had also #^studied#^^ with Malinowski who Н
exercised a decisive influence on his academic work. Fei also received Н
support from the RF in his field work in Yunnan. In 1943 he was among Н
the professors invited by the State Department to the United States for Н
one year, of which part of the finance came from the RF incognito. The Н
visit enabled Fei to complete his influential book #FKEarthbound Н
China#FS.#+[9]$К	- Economics. The most important recipient in this respect was Н
the Institute of Economics under the Nankai University. The Institute Н
was founded in 1927 for the purpose of collecting data on Chinese Н
social and economic problem. In 1931, the RF found it promising in Н
"becoming an important center for the coordination of teaching and Н
research in economics, with special reference to Chinese conditions" Н
and donated бч75,000 toward its general budget over a five year period. Н
Since then, the RF had been a regular supporter of the Institute all Н
through the difficult years of war. By 1946, over бч200,000 had been Н
spent on the Institute directly or through other China programs, Н
forming the largest contribution to a single institution in the social Н
sciences in China. The Institute achieved many important research Н
projects closely related to China's realities of the time.#+[10]$
	--Agricultural economy in Nanking University was the third Н
emphasis of the RF work in this field besides Yenching and Nankai.$
     In the realm of humanities, the main work of the RF was on Н
language teaching and translation:$
     - English Teaching. Beginning from 1936, the RF extended a Н
special fund to the Orthological Institute of China and promoted, Н
through it, the reform in English teaching in Chinese universities and Н
middle schools. In the latter half of the 40s, the RF took a Н
particular interest in the departments of liberal arts of Qinghua Н
University and set great store by the Department of Western Languages Н
especially, believing it had developed "an unusually successful Н
combination of Chinese and American educational methods and acquired a Н
reputation for outstanding instruction in English language and Н
literature."  It appropriated in 1947 бч20,000 to Qinghua to be paid Н
in annual installments for five years for support of the humanities Н
programs. The allocation was in fact given only in the first year and Н
had to stop in 1949. #+[11]$
	- Translation of literature.  In 1948, RF appropriated a grant Н
of бч7,500 for the translation of a series of Western literary works Н
into Chinese. This project was sponsored by the China Welfare Fund Н
headed by Mme. Sun Yat-san and the work was done by a number of famous Н
writers and literary figures in Shanghai organized in the Chinese Н
Artists and Writers Committee, which was by and large a left-wing Н
organization. The payment was done through China Aid Council Inc. in Н
New York which was the agent of China Welfare Fund in the United Н
States. Despite the complications caused by the Revolution, the final Н
payment was accomplished in 1950 and a series of Chinese translations Н
of works including those by Steinbeck, Leo Tolstoy, Gorky, Н
Roman Roland, Dickens, etc., were published.#+[12]     Besides, grants Н
were given to projects carried out by individuals in both China and Н
the United States. The more famous among them include the publication Н
of Feng Youlan's #FKA Short History of Chinese Philosophy#FS_ in Н
English (edited by Derk Bodde) and the research and teaching of Н
Professor Zhao Yuanren in the Yale University.$
	#FHE. Help Chinese intellectuals$#FS
	In 1943-44 in view of the extremely hard living and working Н
conditions suffered by the best intellectuals of China, the RF in Н
response to the suggestion of John K. Fairbank who was then cultural Н
attache at the American Embassy in Chongqing and Robert Winter, Н
longtime professor at Qinghua University, initiated a program of Н
inviting a selected group of Chinese professors to work for a year in Н
the United States, which would be an assistance both to them and to НКthe then developing Far Eastern studies in the American universities. Н
Through the good offices of John K. Fairbank and others, the Chinese Н
government agreed to the plan. As a result of consultation by Fairbank Н
with a group of leading Chinese personalities both in official and Н
academic circles, a list of outstanding and promising scholars was Н
worked out and in May 1944, the RF passed a  sum of бч60,000 as special Н
grant in aid Fund in the Humanities for temporary addition of Н
representative Chinese scholars to teaching staffs and projects in the Н
United States. To avoid misunderstanding and wounding the pride of Н
Chinese intellectuals, the invitations were extended directly by the Н
universities concerned respectively to these professors without Н
mentioning the RF's name. At the same time, the Cultural Relations Н
Division of the US State Department also invited several Chinese Н
professors to give lectures in the United States for one year as Н
cultural exchange program, of which part of the expenses , in fact, Н
was also supported by the RF. As a result, over ten professors, Н
including Luo Changpei, Feng Youlan, Liang Sicheng and Fei Xiaotong, Н
went to the United States under these arrangements.#+[13]$
     In addition to these, the RF also arranged visits by American  Н
scientific and technological experts and professors to China, Н
supported Chinese students in the United States and donated books and Н
reference materials to Chinese libraries.$
	#FHF. Missionary colleges and universities$#FS
	Since its inception, the RF had given financial support to the Н
main American missionary universities and middle schools in China, Н
among which the Yenching University got the highest estimation and Н
received the largest amount. In the War of Resistance, in particular, Н
the RF extended "emergency aid" through the Associated Boards for Н
Christian Colleges in China to the nine missionary universities each Н
year, totaling бч425,000 from 1938 to 1945. In 1946 бч500,000 was given Н
for the restoration and rehabilitation of foreign universities and Н
colleges in China.#+[14]$
	#FHG. Books and libraries$#FS
	Since 1934 the National Beiping (Peiping) Library began to Н
receive aid from the RF from year to year. The appropriation of Н
#^бч25,000#^^ in 1936 was of special significance. It was to be used, mainly Н
under the charge of the Beiping Library, for the preparation of a card Н
catalogue of all Chinese publications between 1931 and 1938, a visit Н
by representatives of the American Library Association (ALA) to aid in Н
planning the future development of national provincial libraries, and Н
the reproduction of material from Chinese texts for American scholars. Н
In this way, according to the RF report, "for every field of knowledge Н
there will be created a new medium of intellectual cooperation between Н
China and foreign countries."#+[15]_ 
The financial aid of the RF was given chiefly through the ALA Н
during the War of Resistance. Two of its Н
plans were supported by the RF: financing the study of Chinese Н
librarians in the United States and assisting China to set up schools Н
or courses training library workers.#+[16]$
$
     Besides, there were also other grants for the purchase of books Н
for special programs, for the establishment of librarian science in Н
universities , etc. The Boone Library which had been created by a Н
missionary in Wuchang also received RF support for a certain period of Н
time.$К#T4II.  Development of Chinese Studies in the United States#t
	Sinology, started in Europe, had a history of several Н
centuries in the West. The Americans came late in the Chinese studies Н
and had take it up from their European colleagues at the early stage. Н
Sometime toward the end of the 20s, a group of people in the American Н
academical circles began to take a serious interest in China and realized the Н
importance of Chinese study. The RF took part in this work Н
from the very beginning.$
	On December 1, 1928 the first Conference on the promotion of Н
Chinese Studies was convened in the Harvard Club, New York. It was Н
sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) and Н
funded by the RF. Among those attending the meeting were leading Н
sinologists like Arthur Hummel Sr., L. C. Goodrich Н
and Lucius C. Porter.Н
Paul Pelliot, a noted French Sinologist, was invited especially to Н
give advises. Conferees all emphasized the great importance in Н
developing Chinese studies and deplored the present ignorance of the Chinese Н
civilization in the West. The Conference passed some resolutions of Н
far-reaching significance, including those for setting up a standing Н
committee under the ACLS to promote Chinese studies (later became " Н
Far Eastern Committee"), compiling a directory of the sinologists of Н
the world, establishing fellowships for the training of competent Н
young scholars in sinological work and holding seminars on Far Eastern Н
topics, etc.#+[17]_ This meeting marked the formal Н
inclusion of Chinese studies into American academic world and the RF Н
to its rapid development in the subsequent years by financing American Н
universities to set up specialties or libraries for China-Н
centered researches, which have since grown in scale and gained great Н
fame.$
     Following are some of the prominent centers of Chinese and Far Н
Eastern studies aided by the FR:$
 	1. Academic Institutions$
	The Far Eastern Committee  of the ACLS and the Institute of Н
Pacific Relations (IPR) founded in 1925 were the two most important Н
recipients of RF funding in this area right from their inception, both Н
in their general budgets and in special grants.$
	2. Universities and colleges$
	According to the #FKRF Annual Report of 1947,#FS_ about ten Н
colleges and universities in the United States maintained three or Н
more faculty members full time on Far Eastern subjects. Almost all of Н
these had received some measure of support from the RF during the last Н
fifteen years, and the services of faculty and students in the Pacific Н
War showed the value of such studies.#+[18]_ These universities include Н
Washington State, Columbia, Princeton, Yale, Chicago, Cornell and Н
California (U.C. Berkeley). The U. of Washington was Н
the first to receive the RF support and therefore got the greatest Н
amount. To give an idea, it received бч100,000 in the year 1947 in Н
addition to a total of бч134,150 in the previous years.#+[19]  The Н
Columbia University came next.  The ones along the western coast were Н
latecomers, but they got no less due to the needs in and after the Н
War. In 1944 the RF gave four universities along the western coast--Н
the Stanford University, the Pomona College, the California University Н
and the Washington State University--a grant of бч260,000, to be given Н
in seven years, to develop research in Soviet Russia and the Far Н
East.#+[20]$К	Each of these universities has characteristics of its own in Н
the Far Eastern studies:  Washington State first laid stress on Н
history and after the War, put emphasis on Northeast Asia centered Н
around northern China.  While history, culture and philosophy featured  Н
Columbia at the beginning, it gradually developed its Chinese studies Н
in various departments of social sciences. In the teaching of the Н
Chinese language,  Chicago excelled in classical Chinese; Yale in Н
vernacular; and U.C. Berkeley, spoken language for practical need.$
	Besides, the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania and Н
Claremont College also received some grants for special items related Н
to Chinese studies or Chinese art, though the sum was modest compared Н
with that given to the above universities.$
	3. Libraries$
	Among them were the Library of U. S. Congress (for the Far Н
Eastern Center in its Division of Orientalia), the Guest Library of Н
Princeton University and the Harvard-Yenching Institute (for the work Н
to create catalogue cards).$
	4. Other Western countries$
	The RF not only supported Far Eastern studies in the United Н
States, but also in European countries, e.g. the famous Chinese Н
Institute of the University of Leiden in Holland and the Far East Н
research projects led by Professor Bernhard Karlgren of the University Н
of Stockholm  were given grants some time or other.$
	#FHC. Projects#FS$
In addition to Н
appropriations towards general budgets of institutions concerned,  Н
special grants were given for the following purposes:$
	1. To draw attention to and stimulate scholarly and popular Н
interest in the study of Far East$
	Since the first ACLS Conference, a series of summer seminars Н
of institutes designed to provide instruction and research Н
opportunities in Far Eastern studies not available in regular Н
university curricula were made possible through cooperation of the Н
ACLS and IPR with universities concerned. In fact a great amount of Н
the financial support given to ACLS and IPR went to this program. Such Н
seminars were run in turn at Harvard, Columbia, Michigan and Н
California State in the period of 1932-42, with the intention to acquaint American Н
teachers and advanced students of liberal arts with a conspectus of Н
the culture of the Far East, broaden their horizon, and kindle their Н
interest in seriously studying the East.$
     2. Compiling textbooks for language teaching$
	Yale and Chicago received grants from RF specially for the Н
development of language teaching. Professor George Kennedy of Yale Н
started in 1936 new methods of teaching using the recent Chinese Н
practice in the education of adult illiterates and adapting it to the Н
foreigners and compiled on this basis experimental textbooks. This Н
work continued through and after the War with the support of the RF. Н
He also bought from China fonts of Chinese type, with which the Н
Oriental Department of the Graduate School of the Yale University Н
started in 1936 a printing house, the best of its kind at the time. Н
Besides printing text books in Chinese, this printing house was made Н
good use of in World War II.$
     At Chicago, H. G. Creel, Dean of the Department Н
of Oriental Languages and Literatures, was in charge of this work. Н
Combining the study of history with that of the Chinese language, he НКcreated a teaching method to enable the students to learn the Н
classical language and vernacular at the same time. He published Н
several selected readings of Chinese classical works with detailed Н
footnotes, such as #FKHsiao Ching (The Canons of Filial Duty), Lun Yu Н
(The Analects of Confucious)#FS_ and #FKMencius.#FS$
     Following the outbreak of the Pacific War, the RF funded the Н
American Council on Education for revising, examining and approving Н
teaching materials concerning the Far East, to be used by secondary Н
schools and regular colleges in the United States. One of the projects Н
the RF spent great amounts of fund on was the research in the method Н
of teaching English-speaking students Chinese.$
	3. Translating and publishing works of Chinese history and Н
culture.$
	The RF devoted a great amount of money to the "Wittfogel Н
Project" of Basic Source Materials on Chinese Economic and Cultural Н
History. It was to be an English translation of about 50,000 extracts Н
from the Chinese dynastic histories encompassing the whole history of Н
Chinese civilization. From 1939-1946, the RF funded it with a Н
total of бч187,800. Finally only the part #FKLiao#FS_ was published, as Н
Professor Karl A. Wittfogel's interest turned elsewhere. This Н
could be regarded as the least effective appropriation by the RF in Н
proportion to the huge amount of expenditure.$
	Comparatively, a small grant  was given for the translation of Н
Feng Youlan's #FKHistory of Chinese Philosophy#FS_ by Derk Bodde; but Н
the book produced big and far-reaching influence on the understanding Н
of Chinese civilization by Americans. Also translated were some works Н
on Chinese intellectual history, including #FKA History of Chinese Н
Thinking#FS_ by Hu Shi.$
	A special project worth mentioning here is the book written by Н
Arthur Hummel, Sr.: #FKEminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period#FS._ It Н
was done during the author's service at the Library of Congress as Н
head of the Orientalia. The RF had given support to its completion Н
throughout the years. The book received high regard both in American Н
and Chinese academic circles and has been translated into Н
Chinese.#+[21]$
#T4III. Ideas and Ideals#t
	From the incomplete account given above, one can see that the Н
RF indeed carried out large-scale--and mostly pioneering--cultural and Н
educational work in China on the one hand and did a lot to further the Н
American people's understanding of China on the other. Why did it Н
devote so much energy and money to this cause? And why did it take Н
upon itself to break the path for the development of Far Eastern Н
studies in the United States? To answer these questions, one must Н
first of all understand the decision-makers' ideals and belief. Here, Н
I am not referring to the thinking of any individual, but of a group Н
of people, whose ideas and ideals had been formed and inherited over Н
generations. For convenience sake, the RF will be personified in the Н
discussion hereafter.$
	#FHA. The original ideas for setting up the Foundation$#FS
	Toward the end of the nineteenth century, John D. Rockefeller, Н
Senior, in a spell of good fortune, became the first billionaire in Н
the United States and, indeed, in the world, and wealth kept on Н
rolling in continuously. How to spend the money became a problem. As a Н
pious Baptist, he believed: if the very rich "get pleasure from Н
the possession of money it comes from the ability to do things which НКgive satisfaction to someone besides themselves"#+[22] and started Н
making contributions to different kinds of causes. In the early 1890s, Н
he spent over a million dollars in donation each year. Meanwhile, Н
letters appealing for help kept on pouring in from everywhere.  Н
He Н
chose education as the key area of his donations and the founding of Н
the University of Chicago was his first feat. Through this, he Н
came to be acquainted with a baptist minister, Frederick T. Gates, Н
Secretary-General of the Baptist Education Society, who was to become Н
his devoted friend and exercise an important influence on him in the Н
coming years. When asked by the oil magnate Н
for advices as to how to spend his money in the Н
most worthwhile way, Gates suggested that, Н
the old man and his children while living "should make final Н
disposition of this great fortune in the form of permanent corporate Н
philanthropies for the good of mankind...These funds (or foundations) Н
....should be so large as to attract the attention of the entire Н
civilized world, their administration become the subject of the most Н
intelligent criticism of the world..."#+[23] The father and son Н
accepted his suggestion and put it into practice in earnest. That was Н
how the Rockefeller Foundation came into being. As has been mentioned Н
above, the aim of the Foundation was defined as "To promote the well-Н
being of mankind throughout the world."$
	#FHB. Ideas leading to the sequence : medical science and Н
agriculture --> natural sciences --> social sciences and Н
humanities$#FS
	Medicine, apart from education, or as a component part of Н
education, was the chief item on which the RF spent its money in the Н
early period. This was also due to the influence of Frederick T. Н
Gates. Acting on his suggestion, the RF provided funds to build the Н
Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the first of its kind in Н
the United States and was considered among the avant-garde in medical Н
circles. Within a few years, a breakthrough was made on a series of Н
diseases, greatly heartening the founders of the Institute. Н
J.D. Rockefeller Junior, after succeeding his father, regarded the Н
institute his number-one undertaking in philanthropy. No wonder the Н
RF, since its inception, made medicine its chief concern. It decided Н
that medicine and agriculture and the related branches of natural Н
sciences should be the means through which to "promote the well-being Н
of mankind", particularly in the vast poverty-stricken regions abroad, Н
where starvation and illness were the two main causes of sufferings of Н
people.$
	By the end of the 20s, this line of thinking began to undergo Н
some change, for it became increasingly obvious that developing Н
medicine and natural sciences could not solve social problems of a Н
more fundamental character. The growing social contradictions in the Н
industrialized countries in America and Europe in the late 20s and the Н
economic crisis that almost destroyed the entire capitalist system Н
showed that a highly developed industry and the power of wealth did Н
not necessarily bring well-being to mankind; they could, on the Н
contrary, give rise to many new problems. At this time, social Н
sciences began to develop vigorously in the United States, in which Н
the Rockefeller family also had its part. The Laura Spelman Н
Rockefeller Memorial, founded in 1918, worked mainly with social Н
sciences. After its merge into the RF in 1928, the latter Н
naturally took over this part of its work, which tallied exactly with НКits new attitude toward social sciences.$
	The RF laid emphasis on three fields in social sciences: Н
economics (including finance), public administration and international Н
relations. Since the early 30s, the American Council for Social Н
Sciences, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, Н
the American Council of IPR and some renowned research institutes in Н
Europe as well as the Fiscal Committee of the League of Nations all Н
received large amounts of financial aid from the RF for the research Н
of related subjects, including both practical issues and basic Н
theories of long-range value. It was out of the same consideration Н
that the RF started to give generous support to the Nankai Institute Н
of Economics in China since 1931. The particular importance attached Н
to international relations stemmed from the belief that a catastrophe Н
might be avoided through increasing communications and understanding Н
among nations. Given the circumstances, "catastrophe" apparently Н
implied war.$
	The development of the Far Eastern studies had something to do Н
with this notion. It is worth mentioning here that this subject did Н
not come under the international relations, but as part of the Н
humanities, the aim of which being the furthering of understanding Н
between the two great civilizations. The RF maintained that it had Н
become a pressing necessity for the Americans to understand the Н
cultural traditions of the Eastern people "not merely on the basis of Н
developing our commerce" and that "American students must have Н
friendly co-operation from Chinese and Japanese nationals in areas Н
that have no commercial or political connections"#+[24]$
	Raymond B. Fosdick, the RF president during 1936-48, harbored Н
a systematic stream of thoughts about the importance of social Н
sciences and influenced in a considerable degree the RF's work in this Н
area. Starting out as a lawyer, he later held the office of the RF Н
presidency longer than anybody else and had a great devotion both to the Rockefeller family Н
and the Foundation.  In his "President's Review" for the RF, the Н
following concern was repeatedly expressed: Natural science does not Н
hold itself responsible for the intelligence or the capacity of those Н
who apply its findings. Its discoveries are left on the doorstep of Н
society without regard to social consequences. The gap between the Н
rapid advance of science on the one hand and the failure of adequate Н
methods of social adaptation on the other was bringing the world face Н
to face with ominous questions. Sir Alfred Eweing's words were cited Н
to sum up this idea: "The command of nature has been put into man's Н
hand before he knows how to command himself".#+[25] From here derived Н
the importance attached to the exchange of ideas. According to Н
Fosdick, the RF had always been interested in encouraging the Н
transmission of ideas and the interchange of experience from one Н
country to another and regard the award of fellowships on an Н
international basis as the most important device for the training of Н
competent personnel for future leadership. Н
This importance given to humanities and exchange of ideas was Н
pursued even more consciously with the outbreak of World War II. The Н
reports from 1938 to 1946 were permeated with a sense of crisis over Н
the progress of the material aspect versus the retrogress of the Н
spiritual aspect of human civilization. Scattered over the pages are statements like Н
"the disproportion between the physical power at our disposal and our Н
capacity to make good use of it", "our political institutions...are Н
mainly rooted in the 18th century, but our swiftly evolving technology НКis largely a 20th century phenomenon" and "there is developing a Н
dangerously tilted situation in our society, an intellectual Н
imbalance, which can no longer be ignored."#+[26] One could almost Н
hear Fosdick crying out Н
for the need of intelligent Н
understanding of the social forces that were remolding the Н
future.#+[27]  Based upon the experience of World War I, in which the Н
task of turning out warriors and weapons had monopolized most of human Н
efforts at the expense of the training of artists, scientists, Н
scholars and other creative personnel, the RF drew a plan of Н
"salvaging brains for postwar leadership" aimed at saving and forming Н
leading academics for the post-war years so as to maintain the Н
intellectual standards.#+[28]$
	The destructiveness of war, the rampancy of fascism Н
and especially the invention of the atomic bomb caused a tremendous Н
shock and deep reflections by the RF on their past policies. For,  the Н
RF played an "unwitting part" in the creation of the A bomb as twenty-Н
three of the leaders of the project had received fellowships from it, Н
e.g. Oppenheimer, Lawrence, Fermi, Allison, Smyth and Arthur Compton, Н
to name a few. What's more, the research and production of cyclotron, Н
which was directly connected with the making of the atomic bomb, had Н
received the generous aid of the foundation over a fairly long period Н
of time. How should, indeed, Н
the right and wrong of it be appraised?  After repeated argumentation and much soul-Н
searching, the policy maker of the RF concluded that the scientists Н
should not be held responsible for the consequences of the application Н
of their discoveries and that "the towering enemy of man is not his Н
techniques but his irrationality, not science but war." "The mighty Н
imperative of our time, therefore, is not to curb science but to stop Н
war", or, "to create the conditions which will foster peace". This Н
responsibility rested with social sciences. Since the nature of humanities and social sciences Н
determined that their development was inevitably a slow and Н
complicated process, the question could be solved only by pooling the Н
efforts and wisdom of intellectual leaders in every field. With this Н
train of logic, the RF redoubled its efforts in supporting the Н
development of social sciences and humanities across the boundaries of Н
nations.#+[29]$
	Soon after the conclusion of World War II, when most people's Н
attention was focused on the reshaping of the world order and Н
the domestic political and economic questions of each nation, Raymond Н
Fosdick came forward with his original ideas embodied in the report Н
entitled "The Isolation of Silence." It said that war not only Н
destroys, it isolates; and isolation means intellectual stagnation by Н
preventing the flow of ideas across boundary lines. This was the most Н
tragic and irreparable losses of war. Therefore, he Н
advocated that the pressing task after World War II was reorganizing Н
transnational intellectual exchanges.#+[30]$
     So, from every perspective, all thoughts pointed to the Н
importance of developing social sciences and humanities. This Н
awareness led the RF to greatly increase its grants to this field, Н
especially in the post-World War II years. It laid special emphasis on Н
the research in international relations and in seeking to bridge the Н
chasm between Western and Eastern civilizations, regarding this as a Н
means to prevent wars. Logically, the RF, under the general aim "to Н
promote the well-being of mankind", traced a course from medicine and НКagriculture to natural sciences and to social sciences and humanities.Н
$
	#FHC. Why China of all countries?$#FS
	The above account of the aim, ambitions and course of thinking Н
of the RF has partly answered this question. Besides, China had certain unique Н
conditions that made it the RF's first choice.$
	1. The attraction of an ancient nation in transformation$
	In the broad sense, the RF had much in common and did cooperate with Christian Н
missions in its philanthropic endeavors Н
in China. But it aimed higher, harbored much greater ambitions Н
and needed a vast space where to make its experiments. China in the Н
first half of the twentieth century happened to meet the requirements Н
of such a space. In the first place, China was both big and poor. Н
Secondly, it was the only existent independent country with the Н
world's most ancient and continuous civilization. Thirdly, it was Н
undergoing a profound transformation in all fields, opening to the Н
West and ready to absorb new ways and ideas. Besides, it possessed a Н
great number of fine intellectuals deeply cultivated in Chinese Н
culture who could at the same time serve as the vehicle to spread the Н
Western culture. There lacked no big and poor countries in the world; Н
but few, or none, possessed the other features. A letter by Ernest Н
Johnston, an American teacher in the Peiping Union Medical College Н
(predecessor of the PUMC) was typically representative of this Н
conception of China. It is worth quoting somewhat at length:$
     "...It is our chance to help China as now she realizes her need Н
and as now her young men are eager to study western medicine. I am Н
thankful that there is a far greater opportunity than merely laying Н
the foundations for the medical profession of a great nation.  We have Н
also the opportunity to mold the character of the future doctors of Н
China.  We want them to be Christians inspired with Christian Н
ideals... In all ways events are moving rapidly here. We were under Н
the monarchical rule of the Manchus a few years ago.  Suddenly we Н
found ourselves in a republic under Sun Yat Sen.  Then quietly but in Н
a short time Mr. Sun Yat Sen was `#FKmei yu la'#FS_ (have not)...and Н
Yuan Shi Kai was president.  For a little while we had a Н
representative assembly and the apparent machinery of a democracy. Н
Then almost in a flash of time the representative assembly was#FK `mei Н
yu la'#FS_ ... The Н
next we heard was that a new constitution was made--a new one to fit Н
in with a dictator and so the democratic constitution was also#FK `mei Н
yu la'#FS_ ... And these days we Н
expect any time to hear that Yuan Shi Kai has actually been crowned as Н
emperor...and republic#FK `mei yu la'#FS_ ...China needs peace and Н
order in order that she may develop as she is so eager to develop -- Н
schools, hospitals, railroads, shops, factories -- and let us also Н
hope and strive that with all these may come also the true God: Н
Christ, and the Church -- if it remain a true instrument for Н
righteousness."#+[31]$
	Six months later, he wrote again:$
	"...The outlook for western medicine in China is bright.  Н
These people have ability and independence and won't be under the Н
foreigners's tutelage any longer than is absolutely necessary. Let us Н
#FKstart them right#FS_ while we have our inning.  A teacher at home Н
has wonderful opportunity to influence and inspire a young #FKboy#FS_ Н
in school - but when that boy grows near his twenties, he gets НКheadstrong and 'know it all' and not subject to much influence for a Н
time.  I have always felt that a young man had to depend upon his Н
#FKearly#FS_ training to carry him thru his headstrong, 'know-it-all' Н
period...So, too, it seems to me now in China.  China is now eager for Н
all we will give her.  There are plenty of signs that young China will Н
not be always willing to learn from the foreigner, but will take Н
things into her own hands in a proud and independent manner...A good Н
illustration is evident right now in the Ching Hwa College.... Until lately Н
they pursued a policy of hiring foreign teachers, usually Н
Americans...Gradually they put in a few Chinese teachers.  This last Н
year there has been a strong tendency to #FKcut loose#FS_ from the Н
foreigner entirely and have all Chinese teachers.  We regret to see Н
his,....  But we must respect their Н
independence and we must face the fact that #FKnow#FS_ is our Н
opportunity to influence China whilst, in most fields, China is still Н
eager to listen to us, to be influenced by us and directed by the Н
doctrine we teach."#+[32]$
	These  candid and vivid words of Johnston expressed the Н
general line of thinking of all sorts of cultural and educational Н
envoys who rushed to China at the heels of the missionaries. They had Н
a compassionate feeling toward China for her sufferings and saw at the Н
same time hopes in the dazzling turmoil and unrest--both the hope of a Н
new life for China and the hope for Americans to exercise their Н
influence on the course of its development. While their attitude Н
toward China was basically one of condescension, they also  showed Н
certain respect for the Chinese people's national pride and strong Н
desire for independence. Both church and secular people tried ardently Н
to reform China in the Christian spirit in its broad sense and to Н
create a new generation of Chinese people. However, unlike the early Н
missionaries who came to China to proselyte mainly among ordinary Н
people, the RF mainly worked with the elite circles of a higher Н
education background who were considered as the cream of the nation Н
and helping them was in conformity with the RF's policy of molding Н
future leaders.$
	2. Reforming China through  medical science.$
	In line with the thinking described above, both John D. Н
Rockefeller Sr. гж Jr. and their advisers including Gates had a longstanding Н
interest in China before the establishment of the RF.  In 1908, the Н
Oriental Education Commission was created with Rockefeller funding Н
under the auspice of the University of Chicago, which was sent to Н
China on an investigation tour led by Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton. Н
Both Burton and Harry P. Judson, President of the Chicago University, Н
advocated strongly remolding China through education, believing that Н
the creation of a university modelled on that of Chicago could Н
virtually cause "a social revolution" in China. Not content with the Н
existing missionary schools, they aspired for inculcating in China new Н
standards of individual and social morality, by means of "a training Н
in new conceptions of political and social organization."#+[33]_ 
As the creation of a comprehensive university after that Н
of Chicago University proved impractical, medical Н
science was taken up. In a country afflicted with political turmoil like Н
China, medicine was the least controversial realm: People need medical Н
treatment under any government. So it was only natural that Н
commissions of medical service should be sent to China right after the Н
inception of the RF and that the PUMC created on the basis of НКthese investigations would give full expression to the intention of Н
reforming China through sciences, medical science in the first place. Н
The instituting of PUMC indicated their ways and means to Н
"reform" and "influence" China: doing medical work, propagating Н
sciences and training professionals and, even more important, to Н
influence the populace through elites.$
	The buildings and the site of the PUMC were symbolic and Н
reflected the ambition of the RF and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Н
himself. An exquisite and expensive palatial affair standing opposite Н
to the Imperial Palace at a distance, they were meant to show the Н
Chinese that the buildings symbolize "the purpose to make  the college Н
not something foreign of China's best ideals and aspirations, but an Н
organism which will become part of a developing Chinese Н
civilization".#+[34] This indicated that, on the one hand, they had a Н
respect for the ancient Chinese culture, and on the other, they were Н
determined to reform it in the American way. As Mary Bullock put Н
it: This approach had something in common with the Jesuits of the Н
seventeenth century who donned Confucian scholars's robes to gain Н
respect for their Christian message; but there was a difference in the Н
attitude: the seventeenth-century Westerners appear to have been Н
genuinely admiring, whereas their modern successors were perhaps more Н
patronizing. In fact, to the ordinary Chinese people who heard the Н
name of the oil king for the first time, these buildings were simply Н
symbol of wealth and  were called "#FKYu Wang Fu#FS"_ (Oil Prince's Н
Palace).#+[35]$
	3. The adaptation to Chinese conditions.$
	The question of high standard versus basic need of China had Н
been controversial from the very start of the RF's work in China. In Н
the case of the PUMC, the upholders of high Н
standard had strong arguments and their will prevailed. The Chinese Н
conditions, however, were not ignored as the idea of adaptation of Н
medical education and work to the special environment and needs of Н
China was mentioned in Welch's speech at the inauguration of the PUMC, Н
though he might not have grasped the full implication of these words. To a Н
certain extent, the PUMC did make some contributions in combining its Н
sophisticated scientific research with the solving of special problems Н
of China, mostly in epidemic diseases common in China. The discovery Н
and synthesizing of ephedrine from the traditional Chinese herbal Н
medicine, the epoch-making achievements in the study of Kala-azar and Н
typhus are a few outstanding examples among others.  These are also Н
good results of cooperation between American and Chinese scientists of Н
whom several were to become top-leading doctors in the People's Н
Republic of China. Following the example of the PUMC, medical colleges Н
of Qilu (Cheeloo), Xiangya (Yale-in-China) and Western China also Н
carried out researches in local epidemics and popularized inoculation, Н
and with good success.$
	The RF leadership acquired greater understanding of the Н
Chinese realities with the deepening of its involvement in China and Н
some of their officers developed a personal affection for the Chinese Н
people. If the PUMC represented the elitism of its work, the RF's Н
support of Yan Yangchu's Rural Reconstruction Project and Mass Н
Education Movement could be considered as the "populist" aspect of its Н
undertaking in China. As was mentioned above, this was the result of Н
the tours and reports of Selskar Gunn in the early thirties which Н
stressed among others: "The dangers of wholesale importation of НКWestern doctrines is decried in an ever-increasing volume.  The demand Н
is now to `chinafy' Western knowledge" #+[36]_ Н
The motivation of doing this was summed up in the 1936 President's Н
Review:$
     "But there are needs in China other than those relating to Н
medical education.  In her evolution into a modern state, China is Н
bound by few hampering traditions, and the plastic condition of her Н
life and institutions at the present moment is an inviting challenge Н
to positive kind of service."#+[37]$
	4. Sympathy and respect for the Chinese people's war of Н
resistance.$
	The 1936 President's Review also said  "China today stands on Н
the threshold of a renaissance" and that the leaders in the political Н
and intellectual life of China was "attempting to make over a medieval Н
society in terms of modern knowledge."#+[38] This was a common view in Н
the West at the time. Many people had high hopes for China's Н
modernization efforts in 1936, and the RF took pride in participating Н
and supporting the drive. The word "plastic" appeared frequently in Н
the RF's documents, showing its insistent ardor to mold a new Н
China with Western ideals. This hope was temporarily thwarted in 1937 Н
when Japan unleashed the aggressive war against China, and many fruits Н
of the RF's efforts in China were destroyed. After a short period of Н
depression and indecision, however, the RF's board of trustees adopted Н
a special resolution in April 1938 to continue its grants to its projects in Н
China in the fiscal year of 1938-39, especially the project of the Н
Rural Reconstruction that had been shifted to the hinterland. The 1939 Н
President's Review expressed the pleasure and pride for managing to Н
continue to cooperate in China's program despite the intolerable Н
difficulties and the belief that work in this field would certainly Н
have a great impact on China's future, no matter what was the outcome Н
of the war.#+[39]$
     This admiration and sympathy for the Chinese people were further Н
strengthened in the 1944 President' Review:$
     "Inspite of the necessarily limited scale of the Foundation's Н
present operations in China no country has a greater claim on its Н
interests and affections. The war is bringing China into the forefront Н
among the nations.  A long and distinguished civilization and a great Н
people are at last about to take their place among the leading forces Н
of the world.  Their heroic services and the contributions which their Н
great native abilities and inherent friendliness are bound to make to Н
an advancing civilization entitle them to every consideration in the Н
difficult days ahead." #+[40]$
	5. Attempts to hold aloof from the Chinese civil strife$
	The RF continued to hold an optimistic tone in 1947 when China Н
was already in the midst of a full-fledged civil war. It held the view Н
that despite the seemingly irreconcilable internal dissensions, in the Н
long run the picture was not necessarily dark, for time had always Н
been on China's side in view of the long history of repeated civil Н
conflicts. It was confident that "the Chinese have a physical and Н
spiritual vitality, a recuperative power, which is almost Н
unique...They are an extraordinarily gifted people, and unless global Н
calamity overwhelms us all, they are destined to make a contribution Н
to the life of man incalculable in its beneficial consequences". And Н
it stressed: "At the moment they need help."#+[41]$
	The "help" here meant continuing to offer appropriations for НКthe restoration of a large number of universities.$
	The RF became irresolute and took a wait-and-see attitude in Н
1949, when victory of the Chinese Communist revolution was in sight; Н
but it continued to complete the payment to the China Welfare Fund for Н
the translation of foreign literature as late as 1950. Whether the Н
officers concerned were aware of the left-wing or communist tendency Н
of most of the translators involved was not shown by related Н
documents. The correspondence among  leading officials in March 1949 Н
revealed such a view: Some of the work of the RF must be done through Н
the authorities of the host country; but this did not mean it Н
supported the policy of this government. Apparently, the Nationalist Н
government could no longer represent the Chinese people, so the RF had Н
withdrawn their staff and property from the Chinese mainland, waiting Н
to see the trends the events would take, and hoped a better work plan Н
could be mapped up under any new government. The new Chinese Н
government to be set up soon would probably be Communist-dominated, Н
but not necessarily unapproachable. Countries embracing any system Н
need medicine, public health and education...#+[42] From these words, Н
one might imagine that if the RF managed to remain on the Chinese Н
mainland after liberation, it seemed likely that it would begin with Н
medicine and public health again to avoid ideological problems. But Н
actual development of events proved that if they had such plans, those Н
could only have been wishful thinking.$
#T4IV. Influence of the Cold War#t
	The RF leadership frequently referred to "mankind" as a whole Н
for the basic starting point of their work and showed a deep liberal Н
tradition in putting so much emphasis on the necessity of interflow of Н
ideas and intellectual exchanges. What then was their attitude toward Н
the Cold War characterized by an acute ideological confrontation, and Н
how did they behave in this period? In fact, The RF's attitude Н
underwent a gradual change.$
	#FHA. General principles$#FS
	At the initial stage, adhering to their consistent principles Н
and belief, the leaders of the RF hoped to find a basis on which the Н
United States and the Soviet Union could cooperate in common cause. For this purpose, Н
an appropriation of бч250,000 was given in 1945 to found the Russian Н
Institution under the Columbia University. The rationale was based on Н
the Chinese maxim "To know is difficult, to act is easy", i.e., more Н
understanding was needed before different systems of ideas and Н
governments could work harmoniously together.#+[43] By the end of Н
1946, the RF still maintained that "One of the important - and most Н
imperative - tasks of our generation is to find ways by which the Н
ideologic chasms which now divide the world can be bridged". It held Н
that in opposition to the West was not just the Soviet camp, but also Н
the Oriental civilizations, such as the Chinese and the Indian , in Н
the traditional sense of the term and that a basis must be found for Н
accommodating the different political aspirations and the conflicting Н
cultural ideals of Eastern civilization and "our own". Hence, the Н
reconfirmation of the RF.'s efforts since the 30s to support Н
humanities and cultural exchanges between the East and the West, Н
and the decision to continue in this line.#+[44]$
     By 1950-51, the tone of the RF began to change. For, in the face Н
of the ever growing international tension and the uncompromising Н
ideological struggle, its former ambition to realize harmonious Н
cooperation in the ideological field around the world seemed but an НКillusion. What's more, "freedom of thought," "no national boundaries Н
for spiritual civilization," "bringing prosperity to mankind" and Н
other principles of the Foundation often clashed with America's demand Н
on "state security." Reading between the lines, one finds perplexity and Н
uneasiness. Since 1952, McCarthyism was on the rise and an Н
investigation was imposed on the RF for "un-American" activities. The Н
attitude of the foundation underwent a further change.$
	#FHB. The Investigation#+[45]$#FS
	In August 1951, Congressman E. E. Cox of Georgia made a speech Н
in the House saying that he had introduced a resolution Н
to create a special committee to conduct a full and complete Н
investigation and study of organizations falling into this category Н
"for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the Н
interest or tradition of the U.S."  Cox 
focused his attack on "those that have operated in Н
the fields of social reform and international relations". He mentioned Н
a series of foundations under suspicion among which the RF ranked high Н
together with Gugenheim, Ford and Carnegie. Accusation against the RF Н
consisted of both work within the United States, and in the Н
international field. Aid to China was among the RF's main offences. Н
According to Cox, the RF having played a guiding role and expended Н
large amount of money in higher education in China over a period of Н
thirty-two years must take its share of the blame for the swing of the Н
professors and students in China to communism during the years Н
preceding the successful Communist revolution in China. Carrying Н
further this logic, Cox made the following sensational accusation:  Н
"Our boys are now suffering and dying in Korea, in part, because RF Н
money encouraged trends in the Chinese colleges and schools which Н
swung China's intelligentsia to communism." (!) 
In 1952, the Cox Resolution was carried and a seven-member Н
special committee, called "Cox Committee" was established by the House Н
to carry out an extensive and thorough-going investigation of the Н
foundations including RF. This round of investigation which lasted Н
throughout 1952 arrived at a basically positive assessment Н
of the record of the RF except certain "minor mistakes of judgment."$
	But in 1953, with a Republican president and a new Republican Н
majority in the Congress and with the surging of McCarthyism, the case Н
was re-opened. Congressman Carroll Reece from Tennessee manoeuvred the Н
House into passing another resolution to authorize  another Н
investigation of the foundations concerned. Hence the "Reece Н
Committee" with an appropriation of бч50,000 voted by the House for its Н
expenditure. The accusations against the RF escalated this time to Н
include of being part of "a diabolical conspiracy" to promote Н
socialism in the United States. In December 1954, a report of the Н
result of the investigation was made public, known as the "Reece-Н
Wolcot Report", which also focused its charges on the RF's work in Н
social sciences.  According to the Report, RF's concentration in the Н
realm of social sciences "has shown a distinct tendency to favor Н
political opinions to the left."  RF's longstanding support of IPR Н
which was at that time a major victim of MaCarthyist assault stood Н
high, of course, on the list. Organizations like ACLS, The Social Н
Science Research Council, the American Council on Education and the Н
Council on Foreign Relations which had received the RF's grants were Н
all accused of having "leftist tendency". Even projects like the Н
research on sex relation were censured for undermining the traditional НКAmerican values and principles, and were therefore "subversion in the Н
true meaning". This went too far even for part of the members of the Н
Committee, so that some signed it with a statement of reservation and Н
some others put out a "minority report" expressing dissenting opinions Н
and resolutely opposing its continuation. The case was closed in 1955 on Н
the ground that the charges were found unsustainable.$
	This incident was the product of McCarthyism at its worst. Н
Looking back, it was a big farce indeed, something in the nature of a Н
family feud. The defence of the RF, which ran to several hundred typed Н
pages, contended that when the Foundation was first established, the Н
fear most frequently expressed by the Congress had been that it Н
would prove the instruments of vested wealth, privilege and reaction, Н
while today the fear was that it had become the enemy of the Н
capitalistic system. In the RF's own opinion, neither fear was Н
justified. In fact, that the RF could firmly stand on its ground was Н
because, unlike other victims of McCarthyism, it lacked no power nor Н
influence in the United States. The investigation set the whole Н
country into an uproar. Even in the atmosphere of the day, major Н
papers and journals like the #FKNew York Times,#FS_ the #FKWashington Н
Post,#FS_ etc., took sides with the RF and openly criticized the Н
conduct of the committees. Institutions of higher learning and Н
prominent intellectuals wrote letters and issued statements to support Н
the Foundation. So the high-sounding and truculent accusations wrought Н
no harm to it but, on the contrary, won it more sympathy and prestige. Н
It is in teresting to note that the defence put forward by the RF cautiously Н
avoided challenging the justification of the theme "alertness against Н
communism", which indicates that the RF leadership accepted anti-Н
communism as a standard of value.$
	How, then, did the leaders of the RF coordinate anti-communism Н
with the protection of liberal tradition which they so cherish and Н
which should imply tolerance of all schools of thoughts without Н
discrimination? The reasoning the RF used to justify itself was found Н
in its report answering the questionnaires of the Congressional Н
investigation: "In recent years we have also felt it essential to be Н
concerned explicitly with the attitude of the individual or group Н
toward Communism. Quite apart from the national security implications Н
of any such affiliation, the Foundation could not recommend assistance Н
for any scholar... unless convinced that the man in question would Н
employ sound, scholarly and scientific procedure, would interpret his Н
results with objectivity, and would without restriction...communicate Н
his results to the world of free scholarship.  It has become all too Н
clear that scholars and scientists who give their loyalty to Communism Н
cannot be trusted to conform to these basic requirements."  This logic Н
was by no means an invention of the RF. Since the rise of communism as Н
a school of thought, two attitudes of liberalism had been evolved in Н
the West. One maintained that the right to freedom of thought and Н
belief should include believing in Marxism (or communism), and the Н
axiom "I firmly disagree with you; but I would die to defend your Н
right to freely express your ideas" should be applicable to all, Н
including communists. Another attitude held that since communism Н
(often identified with Stalinism) excluded and suppressed all other Н
doctrines and constituted a threat to freedom of thought, it should, Н
therefore, be deprived of its freedom, if the principle of freedom of Н
thought was to be safeguarded. Obviously, the latter attitude based on Н
the logic of antinomy prevailed in the mainstream of the American НКsociety, and the RF and its leadership, judging by all standards, Н
belonged to the mainstream of the American society.$
#T4V. Some Reflections on the RF and China#t
	Indeed, the RF spent huge amounts of money, sent large numbers Н
of personnel and took great pains to help China for nearly half a Н
century. What have been the results of its efforts in China's Н
modernization drive?$
	A. The PUMC, without doubt, was the biggest and most Н
successful undertaking of the RF in China. There is no denying that Н
the PUMC reached the highest level in medical treatment, nursing, Н
teaching and research in the Chinese history of medical science and Н
trained hundreds of famous Chinese doctors. It enabled China to Н
develop Western medicine from a fairly high starting point. Though the number (313 Н
graduates in 1924-43) was not too great, its far-reaching influence Н
could not be sufficiently assessed. Both before and after the founding Н
of the PRC, these graduates have constituted the backbone in the Н
medical service, education and research, as well as administration in Н
the big cities around the country, and those assuming directorship in Н
medical colleges naturally implemented and therefore spreaded the PUMC Н
system, experience and standard. So, as far as the medical field goes, Н
the RF's policy of expanding its influence through elites has achieved Н
fairly good results.$
	The influence of the PUMC has not stopped indeed with the Н
medical science. The RF's objective of introducing rationalism and Н
scientific methods into China through medical and other sciences has Н
also been realized in part. This part of its influence was intangible Н
and could not be quantified, but was by no means insignificant, Н
considering the scope of its undertakings and the large number of Н
people it had helped to become leading figures in scientific and Н
cultural fields, especially against the historical background with all Н
the vicissitudes and hardships China had gone through. In sum, it can Н
be said that in the first half of the twentieth century, when China Н
was traversing the arduous road of modernization, the RF played a Н
positive role that could possibly be played under the prevailing Н
historical conditions.$
	B. The motive force for the RF's endeavor in China lay in the Н
idealism plus America-centered world outlook prevailing among the American elites Н
in that historical period.$
	This idealism could be traced to two sources: Calvinism of the Н
sixteenth century and the Enlightenment of the seventeenth century, Н
both inherited from Europe. It took root and thrived in the United Н
States and assumed American features. As Martin E. Marty, a noted Н
American religious historian, puts it: Calvinism led Н
Americans to believe in the power to transform the landscape and also Н
a sense of the covenant which was a sort of pact or agreement with the Н
God. "... The American Н
character is marked, more than that in many cultures, by a sense of Н
the endowment...One is to be a good steward of the earth, to make an Н
invent, to earn and save and give, acting out a pattern of meaning and Н
value that has divine endorsement."#+[46] The Enlightenment movement Н
left an even more obvious impact on American character and culture, as Н
it was the thinking guided and propagated by its founding fathers. Н
Its core lies in replacing religious creeds with science and reason, Н
but not opposing religion itself. It stresses that all thinking people Н
can comprehend the will of God. These two traditions have one thing in НКcommon: the emphasis on the universality of man. In fact, The theories Н
of human development of various descriptions can be roughly divided Н
into two schools: One that stresses the universality and the other Н
ethnicity. The former believed in the basic common values and common Н
law of development of mankind of all nations despite their differences Н
in cultural tradition and stages and patterns of development. The Н
latter underlines the differences among nations and ethnic groups, and Н
holds that no uniform values and road of development should be imposed Н
on them. The dominant thinking of the RF leadership belonged obviously Н
to the first school of "universalism."  For them, the universal truth Н
applicable to all nations consisted in science and reason, and Н
induction as methodology. This is a world outlook, an approach to all Н
objects and matter in the cosmos. Whereas, the Eastern way of thinking Н
was characterized by vague concepts and mysticism, which, in their Н
opinion, sought no deep understanding, relied only on experience and Н
tradition and resorted to deduction in methodology. To put it simply, Н
they believed that only through remolding the latter with the former, Н
could old China gain a new life.$
	The United States in the early twentieth Н
century was on the ascendancy, getting rich and prosperous fast and Н
full of vigor and self-confidence. Many an American truly believed in the romantic Н
thought which claimed that civilization having begun in the East, in Н
China and India, had moved steadily westward in its successive stages Н
of development and finally to America through Europe and that now it Н
was for the Americans to finish the "great circle" by bringing back Н
the newest civilization across the pacific to the Far East. The idea Н
was all the more strengthened after World War I.  With their back to Н
the shaken, declining Old Continent of Europe on the other side of the Н
Atlantic Ocean, and facing across the Pacific the vast ancient land of Н
China, poor and backward but full of hope for a new life, a sense of Н
historic mission welled up in hearts of those "elites of God". They Н
earnestly believed they were the representatives of a new Н
civilization, and indeed, the "edge of Western civilization" with the Н
task to transform the world. There was no reason why they should not Н
sweep forward from victory to victory.#+[47] To them the spirit of Н
Christianity was a moral force, reason and science were the motivating Н
power of social change, and the integration of the two could create Н
miracle.$
	Romanticism aside, to proceed from objective facts and look at Н
the problem from a historical point of view, science and reason were Н
indeed the very things progressive Chinese intellectuals were seeking Н
at the time. China was witnessing not only a political Н
revolution, but also a profound intellectual and social revolution. Н
The undertakings that the RF supported and the spirit it encouraged, Н
in both subjective intention and objective effects, conformed in the Н
main to the progressive trend in China. The American elites of the Н
time, compared with those of the post-World War II  when America became a superpower, were closer to the tradition of the Enlightenment Н
and less tarnished by hegemonistic politics, vulgar pragmatism and Н
ideological prejudices. Moreover, on the Chinese side, the Н
intermediate vehicles of the Western thoughts were well-educated Н
intellectuals deeply cultivated in Chinese culture and also with Н
ideals. As a result, the influence spread to China at that time Н
contained relatively a bigger portion of cream to dross.$
	C. This America-centered world outlook and strong sense of superiority would Н
naturally be in conflict with the Chinese people's growing national НКconsciousness.  The intent to set off a profound social revolution Н
through the spread of Western ideas and thereby to enable China to Н
shake off feudalism and enter into a modern society was obviously Н
unrealistic. The PUMC trained doctors, despite their positive roles Н
mentioned above, were regarded by the ordinary Chinese people as a Н
special species of people too foreign and too highly placed for them Н
to reach. Yan Yangchu's Rural Reconstruction Н
Project which the RF aided with great enthusiasm was, in proportion to Н
the scope of deep-rooted problems in China, like an attempt to "quench Н
the fire of a cartload of firewood with one cup of water" as the Н
Chinese saying goes. The RF, basically a philanthropic institution, Н
could not possibly be expected to understand the course of events Н
which led to an armed revolution in China.$
	The RF emphasized that it played only the role of a "catalyst" Н
to arouse reformist forces within China, for after Н
all the undertakings it started in China should be run by the Chinese Н
themselves. But, in reality, the Н
process of turning the management to Chinese personnel was beset with Н
difficulties. A case in point was the PUMC. In the initial period of Н
its existence, all the leading personnel were Americans, and the RF Н
headquarters in New York, i.e., J.D. Rockefeller Junior himself, had the Н
final say in everything, for he had a particular affection for the Н
College. Later, the number of Chinese increased gradually in the Н
faculty; but the administrative power remained firmly in the hands of Н
Americans. After the Northern Expedition of Chinese national Н
revolutionary forces in 1926, bowing to the people's national Н
aspirations, the National government adopted the policy of Н
"Sinonization" of education. The leadership of the PUMC, therefore, Н
had to be reorganized. Liu Heng, a graduate of the Harvard Medical Н
College was appointed director of the College, and Roger Green, an Н
American, its deputy director. Besides, in accordance with the Н
provisions of the Chinese Education Ministry, Chinese members made up Н
the majority of the trustees. But both Roger Green and the Н
RF headquarters in New York thought conditions were not yet ripe for Н
the Chinese to manage the affairs of PUMC. As Liu Heng was at the same Н
time deputy minister of public health, Green, in fact, continued to be Н
the real boss of the  College, who, in turn, acted upon orders from Н
the New York headquarters. The Chinese trustees, though in majority, Н
did not contend for actual power, as the College had to depend on New Н
York for funds. Later, Green offended both Rockefeller II and Н
Rockefeller III and was removed from the office of both Chairman of Н
the PUMC Board of Trustees and President of the China Medical Board. Н
Nothing could change this decision, despite a unanimous resolution of Н
the PUMC Board of Trustees strongly appealing for his stay. This Н
incident showed that the Rockefellers kept a firm rein on the PUMC up Н
till the outbreak of the War.#+[48] However, Chinese schools to be run Н
by Chinese being an irresistible trend of the time, by 1940, the ratio Н
of Chinese faculty versus American in the PUMC reached 109:10, and the Н
Chinese professors and associate professors outnumbered the Westerners Н
as well.#+[49] In the same year, when J.D. Rockefeller, Jr. retired Н
from the Chairmanship of the Trustee he expressed the hope that after Н
five years, a last gift would be given to the PUMC by the RF with a Н
statement that from then on the College should operate on a self-Н
supporting basis.  In 1946, accordingly, having made its last donation Н
of approximately бч10m. the RF decided to turn the PUMC altogether to Н
the Chinese. In comparison to the PUMC, the resistance to turn over the management НКof other institutions was much less stubborn.$
	D. Viewd against the background of the United States' China Н
policy, the RF's involvement in China began after a series of events--Н
the announcement of the Open Door policy, the Boxer's Rebellion, the Н
Eight Allies' invasion of China in 1900 and the Chinese boycotting of Н
American goods, and coincided with the time when the US government Н
decided to return the remain of the "Boxer's indemnity" for the Н
education in China. Obviously, its endeavors in China were in keeping Н
with this general trend. But these efforts of the RF could not be Н
entirely equated with the policy of the US government. Deeply involved Н
in certain areas of Chinese life through the tumultuous years of Н
political upheavals and changes of political regimes with or without Н
bloodshed, the RF had all along refrained from getting mixed in Н
Chinese Н
politics and had not followed the US government in supporting or Н
opposing any Chinese political faction. It concerned itself only with Н
its own cause in China, trying to adapt to the changing Chinese Н
conditions for the continuation and development of its undertakings in Н
China and dealt with officials in power only to facilitate its Н
operations. The same attitude was maintained toward the civil war Н
between KMT and CCP as has been stated above, which was also different Н
from the U.S. government policy.$
	E. The RF's efforts for the promotion of understanding between Н
the East and West were two-way-track instead of one way. As has been Н
related above. It made a tremendous contribution to the promotion of Н
Chinese studies in the United States. It was explicitly Н
stated that the purpose for Americans to study Chinese language, Н
literature, history and philosophy should go beyond "commercial" Н
interests, but was to understand another great civilization and serve, Н
from a long-range point of view, world peace. People like Raymond Н
Fosdick had an almost pious belief in the vital importance of free Н
interflow of thinking between nations,  regarding it essential for the Н
survival of human civilization. This was a kind of humanism and Н
liberalism #^stemmed#^^ from the Renaissance spirit. Over time, with the Н
rising of the Cold War, this liberalism sank into a dilemma, began to Н
be marred by ideological antagonism and finally merged into the Н
mainstream of anti-communism.$
	F. Foundations constitute a special power in the American Н
society more than those in any other developed country. The RF is but Н
one of the major ones. This phenomenon was closely connected with the Н
political-economic system and cultural tradition of the United States. 
Looking at the RF's work with China, one can discern certain Н
advantages it enjoys over government agencies, which is by and large Н
applicable to all foundations.  Being a private enterprise, a Н
foundation can afford to act upon more vision and principles. Their Н
process of decision-making is much shorter and therefore more Н
efficient. In their overseas operations they are less Н
affected by state relations and foreign policy considerations and Н
consequently their operations may subject to less fluctuation. 
Cruel exploitation could hardly be avoided in the process of Н
accumulation of wealth by these magnates; but the mechanism of Н
foundations they have founded to spend their money has certainly Н
functioned well and made great contributions to the civilization of Н
mankind. In short, the foundations, with their substantial financial Н
strength, good management and full decision-making and operation НКpower, is a supplement to the government and a stabilizing factor in Н
the American society, and they play in fact an important role in Н
complementing and consolidating the capitalist system. Their influence Н
has reached every corner of the world, and their activities constitute Н
a supplement to, or a part of America's "internationalist" diplomacy. Н
At the same time, they are indeed implementing certain ideals and Н
principles of their own and cannot be regarded as merely practical Н
tools of the American government. This is a complicated phenomenon the Н
discussion of which goes beyond the theme of this article.$
#T4NOTES#t
##[D1J100P80]
_#+[1]_
Raymond B. Fosdick: The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, Н
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick(USA) and Oxford (UK), 1989, Н
p.25.$
_#+[2]_
Since the PUMC has already been extensively dealt with by many Н
works, this article is not going into details. Among other references Н
see: Mary E. Ferguson: China Medical Board and PUMC, New York, 1970; Н
Mary Bullock: An American Transplant, the Rockefeller Foundation of Н
Peking Union Medical College, U.C. Berkeley Press, 1980; Wang Ning: Н
"Peking Union Medical College and the Rockefeller Foundation's Н
Contribution to the Progress of China's Medical Science", Christian Н
Universities and Chinese-Western Cultures, ed. by Zhang Kaiyuan гж Н
Arthur Waldron, (in Chinese), Hubei Education Publishing House, 1991.$
_#+[3]_
2RF Annual Reports, 1927, p.267, 1929, p.227; Tsui-hua Yang: "The Н
Development of Geology in Republican China, 1912-1937", Science and Н
Medicine in Twentieth-Century China: Research and Education, ed. John Н
A. Bowers, J. William Hess гж Nathan Sivin, Center for Chinese Studies, Н
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1988, pp.81-87.$
_#+[4]_
Laurence A. Schneider: "Genetics in Republican China", ibid., pp.3-Н
29.$
_#+[5]_
William Haas: "Botany in Republican China: The Leading Role of Н
Taxonomy", ibid., pp.38-51.$
_#+[6]_
Reports on Visit to China, Selskar Gunn, 1931 гж 1934, Archives, RF, Н
Record Group (hereafter RG.)1.1, Series(hereafter S.)601, Box12, Н
Folder(hereafter F.)129.$
_#+[7]_
Annual Report, 1939, pp.70-72, quotation on p.72.$
_#+[8]_
For details of the RF's work with the Mass Education Movement Н
during the war, see Annual Reports, 1940, pp.337-348, 1941,pp.304-307, Н
1942, pp.239-242, 1943, pp.240-243.$
_#+[9]_
Interview with Fei Xiaotung, August 28, 1995; letter by Fei Н
Xiaotung to J. H. Willits of the RF, Nov. 23, 1943, Archives, RF., Н
RG1.1, S.601, Box 23, F.215; letter by Wu Wenzao to Willits, March 29, Н
1945, ibid., F.217.$
_#+[10]_
Annual Reports, 1931, p.241, 1938, pp.368-69; letter by Franklin Н
L. Ho to R. B. Fosdick, with attached application, July 15, 1945, НКArchives, RF., RG.1.1, S.601, Box52, F.437; Minutes of the RF, 46013, Н
1/18/46, ibid., Box 51, F.429.$
_#+[11]_
Annual Reports 1937, pp.331-32, 1947, p.258.$
_#+[12]_
Archives, RF, RG.1.1, S.601R, Box36, F.378.$
_#+[13]_
Archives, RF., RG.1.1, S.601, Box47, F.389, Box49, Fs.41l, 412.$
_#+[14]_
Annual Report, pp. 259-60; Archives, RF, RG.1.1, S.601, Fs.411, Н
412.$
_#+[15]_
Annual Report, 1936, pp.287-88.$
_#+[16]_
Letter by T. L. Yuan to D.H. Stevens of RF with attached Н
Memorandum, January 21, 1938, Archives, RF., RG.1.1, S.601, Box47, Н
F.389; "A Proposed Cultural Program for Sino-American Relations Н
Involving Libraries" by ALA, Jan. 24, 1944, ibid, S.200, Box203, Н
F.2425; "Education for Librarianship in China" by C. Brown of ALA, Н
April 10, 1946, ibid, F.2427; "Report on the Books for China Project" Н
by (ALA), 1948,ibid, F.2430.$
_#+[17]_
Archives, RF., RG.1.1, S.200, Box190, F.2288.$
_#+[18]_
Annual Report, 1947, pp.228-229.$
_#+[19]_
ibid., p.229.$
_#+[20]_
"President's Review",  Annual Report, 1944, p.15.$
_#+[21]_
Arthur W. Hummel, Sr.: Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, 1644-Н
1912, Government Printing Office, 1943-1944, 2Vols. Prpr, 1967-1976.$
_#+[22]_
Alvin Moscow: The Rockefeller Inheritance, Doubleday гж Company, Н
Inc., Garden City, New York, 1977, p.83.$
_#+[23]_
ibid., p.90; Fosdick, op. cit. p.3.$
_#+[24]_
Draft Report, Trustee's Meeting, April, 11, 1933, p.111, Archives, Н
RF. RG.3, S.911, Box4, F.31.$
_#+[25]_
"President's Review", Annual Report, 1936, pp.32-36.$
_#+[26]_
"President's Review", Annual Report, p.28.$
_#+[27]_"President' Review", Annual Report, 1938, pp.47-48.$
_#+[28]_"President's Review", Annual Report, 1944, pp.19-24.$
_#+[29]_"President's Review", Annual Report, 1945, pp.6-12.$
_#+[30]_"President's Review", Annual Report 1946, pp.7-9.$
_#+[31]_Letter, Ernest Johnstone to Frank M. Norgh of Board of Foreign Н
Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church in New York, Jan. 17, 1916, Н
Archives, RF, RG.4, S.1, Box11, F.50).$
_#+[32]_Letter, Johnston to Rev. Henry Davis of First Methodist Episcopal Н
Church from Peking, June 16, 1916, ibid..$
_#+[33]_Frank Ninkovich: "The Rockefeller Foundation, China and Cultural Н
Change", The Journal of American History, March 1984, pp.799-801.$К_#+[34]_Annual Report, 1917, p.224, cited from Bullock, op. cit.  p.8.$
_#+[35]_Bullock, op. cit., pp.8, 2.$
_#+[36]_Report on Visit of China, Selskar Gunn, 1931, Archives, RF, RG.1.1, Н
S.601, Box12, F.129.$
_#+[37]_"President's Review", Annual Report, 1936, p.50.$
_#+[38]_ibid.$
_#+[39]_"President's Review", Annual Report, 1939, pp.70-73.$
_#+[40]_"President's Review", Annual Report, 1944, pp.16-17.$
_#+[41]_"President Review", Annual Report, 1947, pp.40-41.$
_#+[42]_Letter, Robert Briggs Watson to Stevens, March 25, 1949, Archives, Н
RF, RG.1.1, S.611, Box50, F.416.$
_#+[43]_"President's Review", Annual Report 1945, pp.6-15.$
_#+[44]_"President's Review, Annual Report, 1946, pp.37-38.$
_#+[45]_The source of the following account is from Archives, RF, RG.3.2, Н
S.900, Box14, Fs.85-89, quotations included.$
_#+[46]_Martin E. Marty: "Religion in America", #FKMaking America, The Н
Society and Culture of the United States,#FS_ ed. Luther S. Luedtke, Н
U.S.I.A., 1987, pp.305-06.$
_#+[47]_James Thomson, Jr.: Sentimental Imperialists, the American Н
Experience in East Asia, Harper Row Publishes, New York, 1981, made an Н
incisive description of this mentality of Americans in China, Н
especially in Chapter 1, quotation taken from p. 14.$
_#+[48]_Bullock, op cit, pp.48-65.$
_#+[49]_See Tables 1 гж 2, Bullock, op cit, p.90.$
#E