DEAR FRIENDS : I am going to speak on the San Min Doctrine. This doctrine may be briefly described as a doctrine for the salvation of the nation. A doctrine is a thought, a faith, and a force. When one reasons on a certain thing, he first develops thoughts. After his thoughts are articulated, he creates a faith and thereby force is produced. A doctrine, therefore, begins with thought, is then vitalized by the creation of faith, and finally is established by the production of force.
Comment �Doctrine� and �teaching� seem largely synonymous. �After his [someone�s] thoughts are articulated� implies a codification in a symbolic form (setting in writing, usually). At this point the doctrine, or a theory present in symbolic forms, can be �vitalized by the creation of faith� — or, say, someone's or some body's evaluation and acceptance of the already existent doctrine. It �finally is established by the production of force� would imply the applying of the doctrine (or teaching) on the dynamic levels of life. (WPT).
The San Min Doctrine is a doctrine for the salvation of the nation in this sense — by promoting the recognition of China as the equal of other nations ; . . .
DOCTRINE OF NATIONALISM
I shall first speak of the Min Ts�u Doctrine of the Doctrine of Nationalism. In the reorganization of the Kuomintang we have recognized the importance of publicity,
that is, the wide propagation of our principles as the means of saving the country. . . .
Comment — One could do well carefully to distinguish between �nation� (a group of people) and �country�, a portion of terrain. The lack of such distinctions seems to have been one of the main sources of confusion in the international politics.
(It seems to me that Sun Yat-sen had done a very good job at the definition of these matters ; but there still remain some points of difficulty within his texts. This might often have also something to do with the ambiguities of translation.
With the Chinese social traditions in mind, the meaning of the Min Ts�u Doctrine may be briefly explained as the �doctrine of the national group.� In the past, Chinese have emphasized the family relationship and kinship, and as a result we have had only the �doctrine of the family group,� and the �doctrine of the clan group,� but no such doctrine as that of the �national group� or nationalism.
Our lack of unity, which foreigners characterize as scattered sands, is caused by our lack of national consciousness. . . .
NATIONAITY AND NATION
What I am saying about nationalism being the doctrine of the national-group cannot be applied to foreign countries. [?]In foreign countries there is a difference between nationality and nation. [?] For instance, in English the word �nation� has two meanings : either an ethnic group having common cultural and racial background, or a country
under one government. These two meanings are widely different although they are expressed by the same word. In the Chinese language there are many words having two different meanings. For instance the expression, she hui (society) may either denote the collective phenomenon of human association or a particular social organization. The words �nation� and �nationality� are inseparably related, yet each of these words has certain limits ; we ought to know what the distinction is.
Why can the statement that the doctrine of nationalism is the doctrine of the national group be properly applied to China only, [?] not to foreign countries / In China since the days of Ching [dynasty, 255 to 206 B.C.] and Han [206 B.C. to 214 A.D.], the country has been made up of one race ; while in foreign countries, one race may form several states or one state may comprise several different races.
The British Empire is made up of the white race as the principal people, and the black people, the brown people, and others. The statement, then, that the nationality is the nation-group cannot be applied to Great Britain. For the same reason neither Hongkong nor India can be described as of English nationality. We all know that the English people belong to the Anglo-Saxon race, and most of the American people also belong to the Anglo-Saxon stock. In foreign countries, therefore, nation and nationality are two different things.
WANG TAO AND PA TAO
How can we discover the distinction between nation and nationality ? The best way is to study the forces by
means of which nation-groups and nationality groups are formed. Briefly speaking, nationality-groups are formed by natural development, and nations are made by conquest. [?] According to our own political philosophy, what our philosophers called wang tao (the rule of benevolent government) is the development of a group through natural and harmonious growth ; and what they called pa tao (the rule of military force) is the expansion of a group through conquest.
The product of wang tao is nationality, and that of pa tao is a national state. Hongkong and India, which constitute a part of the British Empire, were acquired by the English through force. At present [1924] the British Empire has colonial possessions all over the world. It is a common saying that �the sun never sets on the British flag� ; that is, within the twenty-four hours of the day wherever the sun may be shining, there are British possessions. In all the vast territory of the British Empire every piece of territory has acquired by means of force. [?]
Throughout history, force has been used for the formation of national states. On the other hand, nationality-groups are always brought about by natural causes without any compulsory action, for example, the hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Hongkong naturally form a nationality-group, and they cannot be changed by the British . . .
FACTORS OF RACIAL DIFFERENTIATION
Now may I speak of the origin of nationality groups ? [..]
There are five principal divisions of the human race; namely, the white race, the black race, the red race, the yellow race, and the brown race. Each race is subdivided into different stocks. For instances, the Asiatic people is differentiated into the famous Mongols, the Malays, the Japanese, the Manchus, the Chinese, and others. [?]
Racial differentiations are due to natural causes, the principal being heredity. Our yellow skin is inherited from our ancestors, and this blood relationship determines our racial traits. The next biggest factor is occupation, which determines largely the acquired characteristics of a people. The Mongols were a nomadic people and their mode of life made them once very strong. During the Yuan dynasty [Mongol, 1260-1368] they unite China, conquered Central Asia, Arabia, and parts of Europe, almost subdued Japan, and almost unified Europe and Asia. Neither the Chinese during the days of Han and T�ang nor the Romans can be compared with them in military greatness and territorial expansion. They could travel afar because of their nomadic habits.
The third factor is language. Alien people can easily be assimilated by the Chinese if they know our language. On the other hand, we ourselves can easily be foreignized when we understand a foreign language. The power of assimilation is specially strong when two peoples have common racial heredity and common language.
The fourth factor is religion ; namely, to worship common gods or believe in common cults. That religion promotes the long existence of a racial group is shown in the Jews, the Arabians, and the Hindus. Although they have
lost their country, they are still recognized as powerful nationality groups. . . .
The fifth and last factor is folk-ways and traditions. When two peoples have similar folk-ways and traditions, they will naturally form one nationality group. If we study the various racial stocks in the world, we will find that their differentiation comes from these five factors ; that is, heredity, means of livelihood, language, religion, and folk-ways. These five factors are products of natural evolution, not fruits of military conquests.
( Pages 163- 168 )
* * *
International wars have been fought very frequently among the nations of Europe ; the last one was the famous �World War,� in which Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria (the Entente) were on one side, and Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Italy, the United States, and other allies were on the other. They fought for four years and they did not stop fighting until their human and material resources were nearly exhausted.
Now the social prophets of the world are saying that in race friction lies the grave danger of another world war. The next world war, they say, will be a racial war, a war between the white nations and the yellow nations. My personal observation does not make me think so. . . . .
. . .
Since the War [1914-1918], Germany has become an oppressed nation. In Asia, with the exception of Japan, all nations are under the control of the mighty [foreigners?]. They all have a common cause of complaint and will naturally unite to battle against the imperialistic nations. So in the future these members of the white race who are interested in international justice will unite with members of the yellow race who have similar convictions. p. . .
Comment �At the same time, members of the yellow race who believe in the power of might [?] will unite with those of the white race holding the same belief�, continued Sun, supposing that �after these combinations are effected, a great war� may ensue. And such would be the �nature of the future war�.
The above text came down from the year 1924. There may be some application to the formulations still. Please note the present-day mainland China ; and North Korea on one hand and the Hegelian/Marxian/Leninist/Stalinist infiltration of the Western (so-called) societies on the other hand.
For example : the current (June 2006) rows over the North Korean armaments might only lead to doom if the underlying theoretical notions are overlooked by the �western� politicians. It is not the country of N. Korea, or the �nation�, or �state� of N. Korea that may be dangerous, but rather, and certainly, a certain brand of ideologues in power (or influential) in that country, with international �ideological� connections.
What is the point in monging the N. Korean scare (as I have noticed myself in certain American newspapers), when the actual problem can be seen anywhere in the world — in the shape of your �friendly� �socialist� — meddling in Mexico, in his collective hands holding the South American drug industry ; etc. ? (WPT).