Project Gutenberg #13940
The Problem of China
Bertrand Russell
1922Russell's study of China after his year of lecturing there: its history, its dealings with Japan and the Western powers, and the contrast between Chinese and Western civilization.
Project Gutenberg #13940 Public domain in the United States Cover source Local typographic cover created for The Missing Workbook from public-domain source metadata
52
words at B2 or above
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
C2+
highlighted
at or above your level
Keyboard: focus a highlighted word and press ↓ for its actions. Esc closes; Enter opens the word page.
in China would be unintelligible.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] In 1691 the Emperor Kang Hsi issued an edict explaining his attitude towards various religions. Of Roman Catholicism he says: "As to the western doctrine which glorifies Tien Chu, the Lord of the Sky, that, too, is heterodox; but because its priests are thoroughly conversant with mathematics, the Government makes use of them—a point which you soldiers and people should understand." (Giles, op. cit. p. 252.)
[25] Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking, pp. 322 ff.
[26] The Summer Palace now shown to tourists is modern, chiefly built by the Empress Dowager.
[27] There is an admirable account of this question in Chap. vii. of Sih-Gung Cheng's Modern China, Clarendon Press, 1919.
[28] A new revision has been decided upon by the Washington Conference.
[29] If you lived in a town where the burglars had obtained possession of the Town Council, they would very likely insist upon the policy of the Open Door, but you might not consider it wholly satisfactory. Such is China's situation among the Great Powers.
[30] The Times of November 26, 1921, had a leading article on Mr. Wellington Koo's suggestion, at Washington, that China ought to be allowed to recover fiscal autonomy as regards the tariff. Mr. Koo did not deal with the Customs administration, nevertheless The Times assumed that his purpose was to get the administration into the hands of the Chinese on account of the opportunities of lucrative corruption which it would afford. I wrote to The Times pointing out that they had confused the administration with the tariff, and that Mr. Koo was dealing only with the tariff. In view of the fact that they did not print either my letter or any other to the same effect, are we to conclude that their misrepresentation was deliberate and intentional?