Achieving Modernity by Studying the Philippines

Phillip B. Guingona

doi:10.1017/9781009359207.004

3 - Achieving Modernity by Studying the Philippines

from Part II - The Philippine Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2023

Phillip B. Guingona

Show author details

Phillip B. Guingona: Affiliation:
Nazareth University, New York

Book contents

Summary

“Achieving Modernity by Studying the Philippines” follows Chinese educators who conducted study tours of the Philippines to learn and borrow from Philippine advancements in education. High-profile Chinese educators who commented on the Philippine system, like Huang Yanpei, Kuo Ping-Wen, and Cai Yuanpei, praised girls’ education, physical education, and vocational education – all areas in which the Philippines excelled. The Chinese fact-finding tours also established many long-lasting relationships as educators from the Philippines, like Gan Bun Cho and Camilo Osias, conducted reciprocal tours of China to support Huang Yanpei’s educational endeavors. After establishing the depth and significance of Sino–Philippine educational exchanges, this chapter argues for a new historiographical understanding of Chinese borrowing in the early twentieth century. It argues that Chinese people viewed the Philippines as a model of modernity not just worthy but demanding of attention. Pivoting to the next chapter, it also argues that, while wealthier people or those with access to scholarships from China began sending their children to the United States instead of Europe after World War I, less-connected Chinese families began sending their children to the Philippines to study instead of Japan after this same crucial turning point.

Keywords

study tours Huang Yanpei Philippine model vocational education Camilo Osias

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: China and the Philippines
A Connected History, c. 1900–50
, pp. 77 - 91

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009359207.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons: This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

3 Achieving Modernity by Studying the Philippines

Touring the Modern

Huang Yanpei (黃炎培) was an educator. Although his attempt to arbitrate an end to the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s through the China Democratic League has diverted much attention from historians, he spent most of his career in education. He was born in 1878 in Chuansha, Jiangsu, which is now part of Shanghai, and it was in this province and city that he began his foray into what would become a lifelong undertaking. In 1905, Huang founded the influential Jiangsu Provincial Educational Association, and in 1912 he served as the Commissioner of Education of Jiangsu.Footnote ¹ Soon after his promotion, he began to take educational tours around the world, painting colorful portraits of different schools in a regular column in Shanghai’s leading daily, the Shenbao. Huang was like an itinerant artist who sought inspiration abroad before returning to his studio to teach an aspiring group of followers.

In 1917, along with 786 other charter members, Huang Yanpei founded the Chinese Vocational Education Association. The influential institution advocated for vocational education, published educational magazines, and chartered and supported vocational schools.Footnote ² It claimed as members a who’s who of prominent educator-intellectuals from China, including Cai Yuanpei (蔡元培), Liang Qichao (梁啟超), Wu Ting Fang, and Zhang Boling (張伯苓). Huang Yanpei rose to the top of this elite group to serve as director of the Association. At its height in 1925, the Vocational Education Association directly managed fifty schools, and the Ministry of Education reported a total of 1006 vocational schools across China.Footnote ³

On January 8, 1917, before founding the Vocational Education Association, Huang Yanpei began his overseas tours with a journey to Japan and the Philippines, which resulted in two monographs.Footnote ⁴ With the war raging in Europe, Huang Yanpei had turned his attention to models closer to home. A team of prominent Chinese educators, including Kuo Ping-Wen (Guo Bingwen 郭秉文), who would later establish what would become Nanjing University, joined him for the educational excursion (Figure 3.1). After visiting Tokyo and stopping over in Shanghai, the entourage arrived in Manila on February 3. There, the group of educators met Albino Z. Sycip (Xue Minlao 薛敏老), a colleague of Huang’s who appears again in Chapter 6.

Figure 3.1

Huang Yanpei and other tour members to the Philippines, 1917

Before proceeding to inspect the schools themselves, the Chinese tour members immersed themselves in relationship-building with a series of banquets. They first traveled to the Oriental Club in Manila where they dined with representatives from the Chinese Consulate. The next night, they joined Albino Sycip and other influential residents of the archipelago for dinner.Footnote ⁵ After these pleasantries, which cemented important personal relationships just like the one we explored at the beginning of this part, the education tour group proceeded to the next phase of the trip. They met with the director of the Bureau of Education, toured several prominent schools, and visited with school principals, teachers, and local Chinese educators.

Philippine schools impressed members of the tour, who applied choice adjectives in their accounts that appeared in newspapers and journals back in China. The sheer scale of the educational architecture caught the attention of Kuo Ping-Wen, who noted for readers back home that the “public school system [is] in full operation with more than two-thirds of the children of school age provided with opportunities of free education.”Footnote ⁶ Huang Yanpei, on a different topic, wrote, “The emphasis on physical education, is something peculiar to Philippine education.”Footnote ⁷ Echoing Huang’s sentiments, Cai Yuanpei, the president of Peking University and a towering figure in the Chinese educational landscape, commended the emphasis on physical education in the archipelago, noting that it was one of the main reasons that the tour embarked to the Philippines in the first place.Footnote ⁸

For many tour members, girls’ access to education, which in turn led to prosperous careers, stood out in an all-around impressive system. Huang Yanpei, for example, noted that girls comprised 42 percent of the student population at the Philippine Normal School.Footnote ⁹ In an era when education became “the defining mark of modernity for a new woman,” as historian Bryna Goodman puts it, this feature of the Philippine education system certainly appealed to tour members.Footnote ¹⁰ Commenting on Filipino contributions to society more broadly, a contributor to a Chinese women’s journal described Filipinas as the most “progressive” in Asia, outlining Filipino women’s contributions to higher education, the workplace, and society at large.Footnote ¹¹ Meanwhile, a Chinese lawyer, who penned a lengthy monograph on the archipelago after attending an international conference there, related an anecdote for his Chinese readers about a Filipina lawyer who successfully defended her client to “thunderous applause.” Perhaps with the intention of ameliorating the position of women professionals at home, the writer praised Filipinas who took up the profession of law.Footnote ¹² In an era of uncertainty in China, the Philippines served as the perfect laboratory to explore alternative ways to structure society.

Featuring clear contours and a balanced color palette, the Philippine education system contrasted with China’s greyscale patchwork. The famous novelist Lao She (老捨), in a fictional account of a Martian Cat Kingdom, which exaggerated China’s societal fault lines like an impressionist painting does to a landscape, wrote sardonically, “schools have students, but no character; teachers attend to make money, administrators attend to make money, and students attend to prepare to make money. Everyone views schools as a new type of restaurant; what is education? Nobody asks.”Footnote ¹³ For Huang, who had likewise concluded that the greatest deficiency of Chinese schools was their “divorce from reality,” the Philippines appeared refreshingly relevant and innovative.Footnote ¹⁴

Tour members had come to the Philippines to examine the country’s vocational education system, so they stopped over at the Sales Department of the Bureau of Education to meet with experts. There, they inspected Philippine handmade products and inquired about equipment and the logistics of the program.Footnote ¹⁵ Huang and other tour members also visited the Central Luzon Agricultural School, the top-ranking agricultural high school in the Philippines; the Agricultural College of Los Baños, a branch of the University of the Philippines system that we will return to later in this chapter; and the Anglo-Chinese School, the leading Chinese school in the Philippines.

After departing from the Philippines, one tour member expressed his gratitude for the good treatment the party had received and shared his hopes that China would send another group of aspiring educators in the near future.Footnote ¹⁶ The one-month tour to the Philippines had apparently left a strong impression on Chinese educators. On May 5, 1917, only two months after the tour came to an end, Huang Yanpei, Kuo Ping-Wen, Cai Yuanpei, and others gathered for the Combined Meeting of the National Association of Educators, which resulted in the foundation of the Chinese Vocational Education Association mentioned earlier.Footnote ¹⁷

Was the founding of the Chinese Vocational Education Association directly after Huang’s and Kuo’s visit to the Philippines a coincidence? Perhaps. After all, Huang Yanpei had begun to advocate for vocational education as opposed to pragmatic education (實用主義教育) nearly a year before in a series of speeches delivered in Shanghai.Footnote ¹⁸ But the proximity of the Philippines trip to the foundation of the Vocational Education Association is too close to ignore.Footnote ¹⁹ Seeing the Philippine vocational education program in action likely gave Huang and other educators the final verification they needed that building a similar model in China was both feasible and advantageous.

Curiously, however, Huang’s biographers and historians of Chinese education have largely ignored the timing of the foundation of the Vocational Education Association as well as the influence of the archipelago on Huang’s sensibilities more broadly. They emphasize instead the influence on China of America, Japan, and Europe. Historians Wen-hsin Yeh and Margo S. Gewurtz, who write about Huang Yanpei’s visit to Southeast Asia and the Chinese Vocational Education Association respectively, do not even mention the Philippines.Footnote ²⁰ Other scholars mention the Philippines in their research but treat it as a minor side exhibit.Footnote ²¹ Without the Philippines, however, the portrait of vocational education in China is incomplete.

Expanding the Tours

Beyond bringing inspiration, Huang Yanpei’s 1917 tour also brought many new friendships and collaborations that reinforced cultural ties between the Philippines and China. Just as the ritualistic exchanges of the tributary system acted as a front for diplomatic engagement and private trade, the educational tour and its ritualistic banquets served as a catalyst for private exchanges. For example, during his tour, Huang met and befriended the prominent Filipino educator Camilo Osias, who was then the president of the National University of the Philippines. Like a friendly artist who hyped his colleague’s new exhibition, Osias later led a group of Filipino educators to China to learn about their education system and provide support for Huang.

Camilo Osias, a Deweyen educator who would author a famous series of Filipino readers for schoolchildren, delivered a speech on education at the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce on his tour in 1921.Footnote ²² Osias had come as a delegate to the Far Eastern Championship Games, to which we will return in Chapter 7, but, according to reports, “educational authorities” desired to detain Osias “after [the] Olympic games to enable him to give us advice on industrial education.”Footnote ²³ In his speech, Osias, standing before a friendly audience, painted a glowing portrait of vocational education. Challenging his hosts, he offered a candid comparison of the education systems in Jiangsu and the Philippines, pointing out that the Philippines spent the equivalent of ¥30 million on education per year whereas Jiangsu spent just ¥6 million despite having three times the number of students as the Philippines.Footnote ²⁴

After the speech, several prominent Chinese educators and politicians, including Kuo Ping-wen and Chengting Thomas Wang (Wang Zhengting 王正廷), joined Camilo Osias and Huang Yanpei for yet another banquet. Mirroring Huang’s itinerary, Osias then toured several schools, including Huang’s flagship vocational school, the Chinese Vocational School.Footnote ²⁵ Osias honed his critical but supportive message along the way with additional speeches, including one to an audience of purportedly 2–3,000 in Nanjing.Footnote ²⁶ In those speeches, venturing beyond the frame of education, Osias voiced his support for the campaign against the Bookkeeping Act, which we learned about in Chapter 2.Footnote ²⁷

During his first tour of the Philippines, Huang had also met and befriended the prominent local Chinese educator Gan Bun Cho (Yan Wenchu 顏文初). A year after Huang returned to China from his tour, Gan sent a letter to Huang requesting an update on Chinese educational reforms. Huang responded with a short letter that Gan published in his education journal. In his letter, Huang painted an optimistic picture of China’s potential. He sketched out the recent changes that reformers had enacted during the Combined Meeting of the National Association of Educators, and he described the development of the Jinan Institute in Nanjing – a mainland school established for Chinese overseas students.Footnote ²⁸

In 1921, the same year of Camilo Osias’ tour, Gan Bun Cho and his educator colleagues undertook their own four-month tour to take in the Chinese educational landscape, visiting over sixty-three schools.Footnote ²⁹ Gan, who was born in Shishi, Fujian, had moved to the Philippines in 1913 when he became the editor of the Chinese-language newspaper, the Kong Li Po (公理報).Footnote ³⁰ During his trip back to China in 1921, Gan, along his fellow tour members, stressed the need for Chinese youth in the Philippines to follow in his footsteps and reconnect with China by studying at universities there.Footnote ³¹ Stuffed into Gan’s packed schedule was a detour to the Jinan Institute, where speakers from Gan’s entourage, along with the hosts, stressed unity and common goals.Footnote ³²

Huang Yanpei also returned to the Philippines to inspect Chinese and vocational schools as part of a broader tour across Southeast Asia in 1921.Footnote ³³ By this time, however, in part due to the success of Huang’s earlier tour, many other Chinese educators were making that same journey. For example, that same year, Chen Yousong (陳友松), a Chinese educator from Hubei who had attended the University of the Philippines, returned to the Philippines with a colleague to inspect the Philippine Normal School.Footnote ³⁴ Echoing some of Huang Yanpei’s motifs, Chen praised the gender balance of the school, writing, “Women who lived here, were extremely happy.”Footnote ³⁵ Elsewhere, Chen and his fellow tour members highlighted the role American teachers played in education, but they also stressed that American teachers, unlike foreign teachers in British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia, led students to sing the Philippine national anthem, not America’s.Footnote ³⁶

Treating the Philippines as an educational archetype, Chinese educators highlighted the active learning strategies in Philippine pedagogy. For example, in the foreword to a translated geography textbook from the Philippines, the translator and editor depicted an impromptu activity in a Philippine classroom where students scoured through maps to locate the hometowns of visiting Chinese educators.Footnote ³⁷ The translator wrote, “Elementary schools that can use this type of lively teaching material and teaching method right now already have [an advantage over] the old methods of forcing students to remember maps – names of mountains, names of lakes, names of cities – things that are not at all of interest.”Footnote ³⁸ A decade earlier, the viceroy of Sichuan Province had requested that textbooks be sent from the Philippines, and the acting director of the Bureau of Education in the Philippines had obliged, sending nearly 100 textbooks.Footnote ³⁹

While Gan Bun Cho’s primary purpose for visiting schools in China was to learn about new innovations in Chinese pedagogy to bring back to the Philippines, many other Chinese from the Philippines returned to their hometowns in China to establish schools, enhancing the overall educational link.Footnote ⁴⁰ Dee C. Chuan (Li Qingquan 李清泉), a leading tycoon and community organizer in the Philippines who appears again in Chapter 5, founded the Longmen School and Shizhen Raise Virtuous Women School.Footnote ⁴¹ Another prominent Philippine Chinese businessman donated ¥130,000 to establish the Yunti School in his hometown of Heshan, Fujian.Footnote ⁴² Poet and educator Li Dan (李丹), meanwhile, founded a school in his hometown in Fujian in 1935 during a return trip there to mourn his recently passed mother.Footnote ⁴³ When these Chinese entrepreneurs from the Philippines founded schools in their hometowns, they brought a little of the Philippines with them.

The Philippines was the Claude Monet, or perhaps I should say Fernando Amorsolo, for aspiring Chinese landscape artists. Even when they did not recognize the influence of the polity on their educational inclinations, Chinese educators subconsciously channeled its methods into their work. Li Dan’s emphasis on physical education and Dee C. Chuan’s encouraging of girls’ education hint at the Philippine influence.Footnote ⁴⁴ In an example of a more direct connection, prominent textile merchant and devout Catholic José Tan Sunco (Chen Guangchun 陳光純) hired one of his colleagues from the Philippines, Fr. Serafin Moya, to temporarily serve as principal and teach Bible courses at his school in Quanzhou, Fujian.Footnote ⁴⁵ The head of the Philippine Overseas Chinese Bank in Manila and founder of the famous Double Ten School in Xiamen, Lim Chu Cong (Lin Zhuguang 林珠光), meanwhile, modeled the curriculum of his school on that of the Anglo-Chinese School in Manila.Footnote ⁴⁶

Lim Chu Cong, who served as the head of the Chinese YMCA in the Philippines, also published an article in a Chinese-language Philippine journal arguing for the popularization of sports in Chinese schools.Footnote ⁴⁷ Another Chinese commentator from the Philippines similarly argued that the Fukien Christian University in Fujian needed to place more emphasis on physical education, noting, “Without physical education, the real meaning of student life will be lost.”Footnote ⁴⁸ Chinese overseas leaders might not have recognized the influence of their Philippine upbringing on their pedagogical persuasions, but their schools contained many Philippine elements.

Upon his return to the Philippines in 1921, Camilo Osias reported, “My recent visit to China has given me increased interest in the welfare of the Chinese people and the Chinese Republic.”Footnote ⁴⁹ Osias had traveled to China as an educator and Far Eastern Championship Games representative, but he returned as an accomplished cultural tributarist. In ways, Camilo Osias represented his generation’s Konoe Atsumaro (近衛篤麿). Konoe was a Japanese liberal who had envisioned and helped create a world of Japanese educational influence on China in an earlier era.Footnote ⁵⁰ Osias, however, was the cutting-edge artist whose innovative methods led the disgruntled old-timer into quiet retirement.Footnote ⁵¹ Osias’ education work and its positive reception in China reveal a broader shift among Chinese intellectuals, who increasingly redirected their attention from Japan to the Philippines in the 1920s.

From Japan to the Philippines

Before the Philippines became a model of modernity, Japan had occupied that pedestal. Over a span of ten years, Japan defeated both China and Russia in highly publicized military engagements, colonizing Taiwan and Korea along the way. Although this aggressive strategy led many people in China to view Japan with contempt, others grudgingly respected Japan’s success and began to see Meiji-era reforms as critical to replicate.Footnote ⁵² Chinese and Japanese educators, each with their own motivations, collaborated on educational projects, and Chinese students trekked to Japan’s top universities to learn Japanese techniques.

In 1902, Wu Rulun (吳汝綸), in a trip much like the one Huang Yanpei would take fifteen years later, traveled to Japan on a four-month tour where he personally met the Meiji emperor. His tour resulted in a glowing 568-page compendium touting the Japanese model.Footnote ⁵³ For students, educators, and policymakers alike, Japan represented an affordable and proven pathway to what they perceived as modernity, and Chinese observers were eager to replicate the island nation’s success by studying and adopting the country’s policies. Having read the previous two subsections, this framing should sound familiar.

Chinese observers were impressed that Japan’s national school system provided universal access, promoted social-intellectual conformity, and indoctrinated students with nationalistic sentiments.Footnote ⁵⁴ Japanese officials, for their part, like other cultural internationalists of their day, eagerly welcomed Chinese students because they viewed those students as a means to extend Japanese soft power. Furthermore, many Japanese officials viewed the colony of Taiwan much like Hubert Lyautey viewed the colony in Morocco – as a “laboratory of modernity” to experiment with progressive policies. Relevant for us, they viewed it as a territory to showcase Japanese-style education.Footnote ⁵⁵ Even on “mainland” China, Chinese officials, with the support of Japanese allies, attempted to implement Japanese elements in their education system.Footnote ⁵⁶

“Modernity” remained a fuzzy daguerreotype, but Chinese people increasingly made out in it the contours of Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu. This is somewhat ironic considering historian Takeshi Hamashita’s argument that modernization in Asia “emerged as a reaction against the all-inclusive superior–subordinate relations of the traditional tribute system” that saw China perennially at the center.Footnote ⁵⁷ According to Hamashita, Meiji-era industrialization was an attempt to wrest Japan from the Chinese-centered tributary system and reorient the bilateral relationship in their direction. If we use education as a barometer to measure Japan’s effectiveness in this endeavor, then we can certainly grant them high marks, but instead of tearing the countries apart, education simply reversed the flow of borrowing.Footnote ⁵⁸

Japan’s influence on China expanded in the early twentieth century. From 1905 to 1906, Chinese schools employed 460 Japanese teachers, which was significantly more than any other foreign group.Footnote ⁵⁹ Additionally, many Japanese cultural tributarists, like their Filipino counterparts, founded schools in China.Footnote ⁶⁰ However, China’s educational relationship with Japan, like its relationship with the Philippines a decade and a half later, was one of measured symbiosis. As See Heng Teow points out, Chinese officials “actively sought to redirect the [Japanese] cultural efforts in ways that would best serve Chinese national interests and aspirations.”Footnote ⁶¹ While Japan gained influence, China gained knowledge. Educator Konoe Atsumaro had a vision, but so did his Chinese counterparts.

Of course, educational influence was not monochromatic. Japan was one of many hues in the palette of Chinese education. Historians generally identify several shifts in Chinese educational modeling. They argue that China mostly adopted European educational models and sent students there to study before 1895, after which they shifted to Japan. Japan remained the center until the United States became the new destination of choice from World War I to World War II. The Soviet Union took that mantle during the Cold War.Footnote ⁶² As this chapter demonstrates, however, this chronology fails to capture China’s sustained and significant interest in the Philippines. Instead of the Europe–Japan–United States–Soviet Union model, this chapter proposes a two-tiered assemblage. While wealthier people or those with access to scholarships from China began sending their children to the United States instead of Europe after World War I, less-connected Chinese families began sending their children to the Philippines instead of Japan after this same crucial turning point.

Why was World War I an inflection point? War exigencies redrew trade and supply lines, making study in Europe difficult, if not impossible. These circumstances led many Chinese students to turn to the United States, which, although involved in the fighting, was free of occupying forces. Simultaneously, in Asia, after Prime Minister Ōkuma Shigenobu (大隈重信) issued the infamous Twenty-One Demands, and after Japan attempted to enforce its Shandong Peninsula landgrab, many fed-up Chinese families began to turn away from the archipelago of innovation to the east. Instead, as the next chapter shows, many students began to direct their gaze toward the equally compelling archipelago of innovation to the south.

The Philippines offered many of the same advantages as Japan, and it surpassed Japan in several areas.Footnote ⁶³ It boasted a well-funded common school system with highly qualified instructors. The Philippines prided itself on a young but reputable system of public universities, like the University of the Philippines, as well as an established network of missionary-founded universities, like the University of Santo Tomas and Ateneo de Manila University. The medium of instruction was English, a critical international language. Travel to the archipelago was quick and inexpensive, and room and board were affordable. Perhaps the most important asset of the Philippines, however, was that it was not Japan. The Philippines never delivered a list of Twenty-One Demands to China, and the Philippines never colonized Taiwan or Manchuria. While exclusionist policies and anti-Chinese discrimination certainly turned off some potential students, the absence of militarism attracted many others.

So, while the prominent Qing dynasty policymaker Zhang Zhidong (張之洞) had argued that Chinese students had compelling reasons to study in Japan at the turn of the century, by 1921, it was Huang Yanpei’s and Wu Ting Fang’s turn on stage, and they shared different advice.Footnote ⁶⁴ Zhou Enlai (周恩來), who would become premier of the People’s Republic of China; Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi 蔣介石), who would become leader of the Republic of China; Lu Xun (魯迅), a famous revolutionary author and doctor; He-Yin Zhen (何殷震), the prominent anarcho-feminist writer; and many other well-known and lesser-known Chinese youth studied at Japanese universities and military academies. But by 1921, the Philippines began to train and graduate its own corpus of Chinese leaders.

Footnotes

¹ Wu Ting Fang (Wu Tingfang 伍廷芳), “Wu Ting Fang Says Sun Yat Sen Is Backed Up by Progressive Chinese Educated in America,” Dongfang yuekan 東方月刊 [The Oriental Brothers] 1, no. 1 (1921): 15.

² Edward C. Lim (Lin Caixi 林材熙), “The Adventures of Chinese Students in the Philippines,” Sino–Philippine Research Journal [Zhongfei yanjiu jikan 中菲研究季刊] 1, no. 1 (1940): 29.

³ Wu Ting Fang, “Wu Ting Fang,” 15.

⁴ Timothy B. Weston, The Power of Position: Beijing University, Intellectuals, and Chinese Political Culture, 1898–1929 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 23.

⁵ Although not listing the Philippines as a model, Republican-era historian Sophia H. Z. Chen (Chen Hengzhe 陳衡哲) captured this desire for a non-militaristic path to modernity in her book, Sophia H. Z. Chen (Chen Hengzhe 陳衡哲), Xiyang shi 西洋史 [History of Western Countries] (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan 上海:商務印書館, 1926), 313. See Fan Xin, World History, 50–52.

⁶ For an exception regarding educational borrowing, see Khu, “José Tan Sunco.” 1–17. For calls to pay closer attention to Chinese modeling of the Philippines and other areas of the Global South, see Aboitiz, Asian Place: Filipino Nation, 150–152; Fan, World History and National Identity, 17; and Karl, Staging the World, 3–4.

⁷ Rebecca Karl calls this the “West–Japan/China dyad,” while Shu-mei Shih calls it the “China–West binary of confrontation.” See, Karl, Staging the World, 5. See also Lionel M. Jensen, “China and the Confluence of Cultures: Overcoming the East–West Mind-Set,” in Beating Devils and Burning Their Books: Views of China, Japan, and the West, ed. Anthony E. Clark (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2010), 107–132; and Shu-mei Shih, The Lure of the Modern: Writing Modernism in Semicolonial China, 1917–1937 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 4. There are notable exceptions, and they dot the footnotes of this book.

⁸ See, for instance, Daniel H. Bays and Ellen Widmer, eds., China’s Christian Colleges: Cross-Cultural Connections, 1900–1950 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009); Mary Brown Bullock, An American Transplant: The Rockefeller Foundation and Peking Union Medical College (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); and Hongshan Li, U.S.–China Educational Exchange: State, Society and Intercultural Relations, 1905–1950 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008).

⁹ Hsu, The Good Immigrants; Liel Leibovitz and Matthew Miller, eds., Fortunate Sons: The 120 Chinese Boys Who Came to America, Went to School, and Revolutionized an Ancient Civilization (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011); Edward J. M. Rhoads, Stepping Forth into the World: The Chinese Educational Mission to the United States, 1872–81 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2011); and Weili Ye, Seeking Modernity in China’s Name: Chinese Students in the United States, 1900–1927 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001).

¹⁰ Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003); Yung-Chen Chiang, Social Engineering and the Social Sciences in China, 1919–1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001; and Huajun Zhang and Jim Garrison, eds. John Dewey and Chinese Education: A Centennial Reflection (Leiden: Brill, 2022).

¹¹ A. J. Angulo, Empire and Education: A History of Greed and Goodwill from the War of 1898 to the War on Terror (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Alexander A. Calata, “The Role of Education in Americanizing Filipinos,” in Mixed Blessing: The Impact of the American Colonial Experience on Politics and Society in the Philippines, ed. Hazel M. McFerson (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 89–97; Paul Kramer, “Bernath Lecture: Is the World Our Campus? International Students and U.S. Global Power in the Long Twentieth Century,” Diplomatic History 33, no. 5 (2009): 775–806; and Noel V. Teodoro, “Pensionados and Workers: The Filipinos in the United States, 1903–1956,” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 8, nos. 1–2 (1999): 157–178.

¹² Greg Bankoff, “Breaking New Ground? Gifford Pinchot and the Birth of ‘Empire Forestry’ in the Philippines, 1900–1905,” Environment and History 15, no. 3 (2009): 369–393; Alfred W. McCoy and Francisco A. Scarano, eds., Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009); and Lisandro E. Claudio, “Beyond Colonial Miseducation: Internationalism and Deweyan Pedagogy in the American-era Philippines,” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 63, no. 2 (2015): 193–220.

¹³ For an example of this semi-celebratory approach to globalization and denationalization in the early post-Cold War era, see Appadurai, Modernity at Large.

¹⁴ For more on cultural internationalism, see Akira Iriye, Cultural Internationalism and World Order (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997); Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); and Fiona Paisley, Glamour in the Pacific: Cultural Internationalism and Race Politics in the Women’s Pan-Pacific (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009).

¹⁵ Iriye, Cultural Internationalism, 3.

¹⁶ Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 1992), 5. For a similar sentiment, see Ghosh, “AHR Forum,” 782.

¹⁷ The “system” itself was never called a “system” historically, hence the use of quotes. I will drop the quotes for the remainder of this chapter for simplicity, however. For an instructive conversation on this topic, see Peter C. Perdue, “The Tenacious Tributary System,” Journal of Contemporary China 24, no. 96 (2015): 1002–1014.

¹⁸ For more on the tributary system, see John Fairbank, ed., The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); Takeshi Hamashita, “The Tribute Trade System and Modern Asia,” in China, East Asia and the Global Economy: Regional and Historical Perspectives, ed. Linda Grove and Mark Seldon (London: Routledge, 2008), 12–26; Morris Rossabi, ed., China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th–14th Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); and Yuanchong Wang, Remaking the Chinese Empire: Manchu–Korean Relations, 1616–1911 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018).

¹⁹ For critical Southeast Asian perspectives on the tributary system, see Anthony Reid and Zheng Yangwen, eds., Negotiating Asymmetry: China’s Place in Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009); Geoff Wade and James K. Chin, eds., China and Southeast Asia: Historical Interactions (London: Routledge, 2019); and Brantly Womack, China among Unequals: Asymmetric Foreign Relations in Asia (Singapore: World Scientific, 2010). For Chinese borrowing from Southeast Asian polities during the height of the tributary system, see John Guy, “Pan-Asian Buddhism and the Bodhisattva Cult in Champa,” in The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, ed. Tran Ky Phuong and Bruce Lockhart (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2011), 300–322; and Charles Wheeler, “Buddhism in the Re-Ordering of an Early Modern World: Chinese Missions to Cochinchina in the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of Global History 2, no. 3 (2007): 303–324.

²⁰ Hamashita, “The Tribute Trade System and Modern Asia,” 12.

²¹ For the “laboratories of modernity” approach, see McCoy and Scarano, Colonial Crucible; Paul Rabinow, “Governing Morocco: Modernity and Difference,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, no 1 (1989): 32–46; and Gwendolyn Wright, Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). As Pacific history scholars have pointed out, scholars still grapple with the perception of Pacific Islands as laboratories for study. See, for instance, Terence Wesley-Smith, “Rethinking Pacific Island Studies,” Pacific Studies 18, no. 2 (1995): 121–124. For a critique of the “efficient scientific management” aspect of the “laboratories of modernity” approach, see Stoler, Along the Archival Grain, 57–58.

²² David Bell, in his research on the French Revolution, describes how “dynamic laboratories” of change influenced global events; see David Bell, “Words from David Bell,” Journal of Global History 13 (2018): 17.

²³ Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper, “Between Metropole and Colony: Rethinking a Research Agenda,” in Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 6. For similar interventions, see Richard Phillips, Sex, Politics and Empire: A Postcolonial Geography (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), 138–141; and Ann Laura Stoler, Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 146–147.

¹ For more on the Jiangsu Provincial Education Association, see Ernst P. Schwintzer, “Education to Save the Nation: Huang Yanpei and the Educational Reform Movement in Early Twentieth Century China” (PhD diss., University of Washington, 1992), 124–277.

² For more on Huang Yanpei and the Chinese Vocational Education Association, see Thomas D. Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China: The Failure of Educators to Create a Modern Nation (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2005), 365–418; Margo S. Gewurtz, “Social Reality and Educational Reform: The Case of the Chinese Vocational Education Association 1917–1927,” Modern China 4, no. 2 (1978): 157–180; Huang Yanpei 黄炎培, “Zhongguo de zhiye jiaoyu 中国的职业教育 [Vocational Education in China],” in Huang Yanpei jiaoyu wenxuan 黄炎培教育文选 [Huang Yanpei’s Selected Works on Education] (Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe 上海:上海教育出版社, 1985), 135–144; and Wen-hsin Yeh, “Huang Yanpei and the Chinese Society of Vocational Education in Shanghai Networking,” in At the Crossroads of Empires: Middlemen, Social Networks, and State-Building in Republican Shanghai, ed. Nara Dillon and Jean C. Oi (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 25–44.

³ Gewurtz, “Social Reality and Educational Reform,” 164.

⁴ Huang Yanpei 黄炎培, Dongnanyang zhi xin jiaoyu: houbian Feilübin 東南洋之新教育:後編菲律賓 [Southeast Asia’s New Education: The Philippines] (Shanghai: shangwu yinshuguan 上海:商務印書館, 1918); Huang Yanpei 黄炎培, Dongnanyang zhi xin jiaoyu: qianbian Riben 東南洋之新教育:前編日本 [East and Southeast Asia’s New Education: Japan] (Shanghai: shangwu yinshuguan 上海:商務印書館, 1918). See also Shi Xueqin 施雪琴, Feilübin Huaqiaohuaren shihua 菲律宾华侨华人史话 [A History of Chinese Overseas in the Philippines] (Guangzhou: Guangdong jiaoyu chubanshe 广州:广东教育出版社, 2019), 191–192.

⁵ Huang Yanpei, Dongnanyang: Feilübin, 1–11.

⁶ Kuo Ping-Wen (Guo Bingwen 郭秉文), “My Impressions of the Philippines,” Feilübin Huaqiao jiaoyu congkan 菲律賓華僑教育叢刊 [The Philippine Chinese Educational Magazine] 1 (1917): 15.

⁷ Huang Yanpei, Dongnanyang: Feilübin, 17.

⁸ Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培, “Xuyan 序言 [Preface],” Feilübin Huaqiao jiaoyu congkan菲律賓華僑教育叢刊 [The Philippine Chinese Educational Magazine] 1 (1917): 1.

⁹ Huang Yanpei, Dongnanyang, 78

¹⁰ Goodman, “The New Woman Commits Suicide,” 79.

¹¹ Lin Jianbang 林建邦, “Feilübin funü gaikuang 菲律濱婦女概況 [Survey of Women in the Philippines],” Funü zazhi 婦女雜志 [The Ladies’ Journal] 9, no. 7 (1923): 65–67.

¹² Zheng Min 鄭民, Feilübin 菲律賓 [The Philippines] (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan上海:商務印書館, 1925), 190.

¹³ Lao She 老舍, Maochengji xin Hanmuliede 猫城记:新韩穆烈德 [Cat Country and New Hamlet] (Shanghai: Wenhui chubanshe 上海:文匯出版社, 2008), 112. For an interesting parallel critique from the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period, see José Rizal, El Filibusterismo, trans. Ma. Soledad Lacson-Locsin, ed. Raul L. Locsin (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), 98–108.

¹⁴ Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China, 372.

¹⁵ Huang Yanpei, Dongnanyang, 44. For more on the handmade products industry, see Glenn Anthony May, “The Business of Education in the Colonial Philippines, 1909–30,” in Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State, ed. Alfred W. McCoy and Francisco A. Scarano (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009), 151–162.

¹⁶ Chen Xiaozhuang (陳筱荘), “Dongfang julebu huansong kaocha jiaoyutuan zhi yanshuohui: Chen Xiaozhuang xiansheng yanshuoci 東方俱樂部歡送考察教育團之演說會:陳筱荘先生演說詞 [Education Investigation Committee Farewell Banquet Speeches from the Oriental Club: Mr. Chen Xiaozhuang’s Speech]” Feilübin Huaqiao jiaoyu congkan 菲律賓華僑教育叢刊 [The Philippine Chinese Educational Magazine] 1 (1917): 13.

¹⁷ For a detailed timeline of these events, see Xu Hansan 许汉三, Huang Yanpei nianpu 黄炎培年谱 [Chronicle of Huang Yanpei] (Beijing: Wenshi ziliao she 北京:文史资料社, 1985), 28–41.

¹⁸ Footnote Ibid., 28; and Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China, 378–385.

¹⁹ Some observers from the Philippines drew the same conclusion. See “China May Adopt System in P.I.,” Manila Daily Bulletin, June 4, 1921.

²⁰ Gewurtz, “Social Reality and Educational Reform,” 163; and Yeh, “Huang Yanpei,” 39. Yeh mentions specifically Huang’s visit to schools in Japan-controlled Manchuria and British, Dutch, and French colonies in Southeast Asia, but not the Philippines. Lydia Yu-Jose offers an interesting perspective on Japanese politician and statesman Tsurumi Yusuke’s tour to the Philippines, however. See Yu-Jose, Japan Views the Philippines, 30–37.

²¹ See, for instance, Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China, 390; and Qu Guanghua 曲光华, “Huang Yanpei yu Minguo shiqi de zhiye jiaoyu shulun 黄炎培与民国时期的职业教育述论 [On Huang Yanpei and Vocation Education during the Republican Period],” Minguo dangan 民国档案 [Republican Archives] 2 (2007): 67.

²² Camilo Osias (Aoxiya 奧西亞), “Ji Feidao yuandong yundonghui daibiao Aoxiya jun zai Shanghai zongshanghui zhi yanshuo 記菲島遠東運動會代表奧西亞君在上海總商會之演說 [Remembering Philippine Far Eastern Championship Games Representative Mr. Osias’ Speech at the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce],” Zhongguo yu Nanyang 中國與南洋 [China and Malaysia] 2, no. 2/3 (1921): 137. The meeting was cohosted by the Jiangsu Provincial Educational Association. Osias’ speech was also published in the Philippines; see Camilo Osias, “The Trinity of China’s Greatest Needs,” Dongfang yuekan 東方月刊 [The Oriental Brothers] 1, no. 1 (1921): 28–30, 34–35, 40.

²³ “China May Adopt,” Manila Daily Bulletin. For more on Camilo Osias, see Eduardo Bananal, Camilo Osias: Educator and Statesman (Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Company, 1974); Lisandro E. Claudio, Liberalism and the Postcolony: Thinking the State in the 20th-Century Philippines (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2017), 23–43; and Camilo Osias, The Story of a Long Career of Varied Tasks (Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Company, 1971).

²⁴ Osias, “Ji Feidao,” 137. The article uses Huang Yanpei’s courtesy name, Huang Renzhi (黃任之).

²⁵ Hu Daonan 胡道南, “Ge gongtuan huanying yuandong yundonghui Feilübin daibiao Aoxiya jun 個公團歡迎遠東運動會菲律濱代表奧西亞君 [Different Organizations Welcome Philippine Far Eastern Championship Games Representative Mr. Osias],” Zhongguo yu Nanyang中國與南洋 [China and Malaysia] 2, no. 2/3 (1921): 132.

²⁶ Osias, “Ji Feidao,” 133.

²⁷ Footnote Ibid., 134.

²⁸ Huang Yanpei 黃炎培, “Yi nian youban 一年有伴 [A Year and a Half],” Feilübin Huaqiao jiaoyu congkan 菲律賓華僑教育叢刊 [The Philippine Chinese Educational Magazine] 2 (1919): 9–12.

²⁹ Gan Bun Cho (Yan Wenchu 顏文初), “Dui huiguo kaochatuan zhi chuyan 對回國考察團之芻言 [My Humble Opinion on the China Return Home Survey],” in Feilübin Huaqiao huiguo kaochatuan tekan 菲律濱華僑回國考察團特刊 [Philippine Overseas Chinese Return Home Survey Special Bulletin] (Manila: Feilübin minli yinshuguan 馬尼拉:菲律濱民立印書館, 1936), 4–5; and “Benxiao shangke huanying Feilübin Huaqiao jiaoyu kaochatuan yanshuo ji 本校商科歡迎菲律賓華僑教育考察團演說記 [The Department of Commerce at Our School Welcomes the Philippine Huaqiao Education Tour Group],” Zhongguo yu Nanyang 中國與南洋 [China and Malaysia] 2, no. 2/3 (1921): 39–42.

³⁰ Later, Gan became the principal of the Anglo-Chinese School in the Philippines, where he remained until his death in 1942 at the hands of Japanese soldiers. Research on Gan Bun Cho is limited, but for a brief introduction to his life, see Li Tianxi, “Feihua jiaoyujia Yan Wenchu,” 182–184.

³¹ “Benxiao shangke,” Zhongguo yu Nanyang, 45.

³² Chen Rongzong 陳榮宗 and Gong Daoxi 龔道熙, “Huaqiao jiaoyu kaochatuan zhi yanshuo 華僑教育考察團之演說 [Speeches from the Huaqiao Education Tour Group],” Zhongguo yu Nanyang中國與南洋 [China and Malaysia] 2, no. 2/3 (1921): 43. Camilo Osias also visited Jinan in his tour; see Hu Daonan, “Ge gongtuan,” 133.

³³ Huang Yanpei 黃炎培, “Nanyang zhi zhiye jiaoyu 南洋之職業教育 [Vocational Education in Southeast Asia],” Jiaoyu yu zhiye 教育与职业 [Education and Vocation] 1 (1921): 1–3.

³⁴ Ma Mingluan 馬鳴鸞, “Feilübin shifan xuexiao (Philippine Normal School) canguan ji 菲律賓師範學校 (Philippine Normal School) 參觀記 [Philippine Normal School Visit],” Xueyi 學藝 [Science and Art] 3, no. 10 (1922): 1–10. For more on Chen Yousong, see Yu Shusheng 于述耘, “Zhenzheng de xuezhe (shang) – zhuimu Chen Yousong xiansheng 真正的学者(上) – 追慕陈友松先生 [A Genuine Scholar (Part One) – Admiring Mr. Chen Yousong],” Zhongguo jiaoshi 中国教师 [Teacher’s Journal] 1 (2011): 54–56, 60; and the two follow-up articles.

³⁵ Ma Mingluan, “Feilübin shifan xuexiao,” 5.

³⁶ Footnote Ibid., 9. For more on America’s role in fostering Philippine nationalism, see Resil B. Mojares, “The Formation of Filipino Nationality Under U.S. Colonial Rule,” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 34, no. 1 (2006): 11–32.

³⁷ Tang Jue 唐珏, “Feilübin chudeng xiaoxue sannianji dili jiaocai 斐律濱初等小學三年及地理教案 [Philippine Elementary Education Grade Three Geography Lesson Plan],” Zhonghua jiaoyu jie 中華教育界 [Chinese Education World] 11, no. 5 (1922): 40–57. The pagination is unclear in the copy I viewed.

³⁸ Footnote Ibid. This journal article is a copy of the introduction to the translated textbook. The textbook might be an earlier edition of Maria Valdez-Ventura’s elementary school geography textbook; see Maria Valdez-Ventura, Philippine Primary Geography (Manila: Associated Publishers, 1924). For more on Chinese borrowing of active learning methodologies, see Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China, 128–130.

³⁹ Zhongguo diyi lishi danganguan 中国第一历史档案馆, Qingdai Zhongguo yu Dongnanya geguo guanxi dangan shiliao huibian, di er ce, Feilübin juan 清代中国与东南亚各国关系档案史料汇编, 第二册, 菲律賓卷 [Qing Dynasty China and Southeast Asian Relations Archives Collections, Volume 2, The Philippines] (Beijing: Guoji wenhua chubangongsi 北京:国际文化出版公司, 2004), 467–478. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

⁴⁰ For a brief introduction to Chinese overseas educational endeavors in Fujian and the Philippines, see Cook, “Currents of Education and Identity”; Qiao Yinwei 乔印伟, “Mingguo shiqi (1912–1937 nian) Jinjiang de qiaoban jiaoyu jiqi tedian 民国时期(1912–1937年)晋江的侨办教育及其特点 [Republican Period (1912–1937) Jinjiang Huaqiao Schools and Their Characteristics],” Huaqiao huaren lishi yanjiu 华侨华人历史研究 [Historical Studies of Chinese Overseas] 3 (2000): 30–39; and Wang Zengbing 王增炳 and Yu Gang 余纲, Chen Jiageng xingxue ji 陈嘉庚兴学记 [Tan Kah Kee’s Contribution to Education] (Fujian: Fujian jiaoyu chubanshe, 1981).

⁴¹ Dai Yifeng 戴一峰, “Dongnanya Huaqiao zai Xiamen de touzi: Feilübin Lishi jiazu gean yanjiu (ben shiji ershi zhi sanshi niandai) 东南亚华侨在厦门的投资:菲律宾李氏家族个案研究(本世纪二十至三十年代) [Southeast Asian Huaqiao Investment in Xiamen: Case Study of the Li Family from the Philippines (1920s to 1930s)],” Zhongguo shehui jingji shi yanjiu 中国社会经济史研究 [Chinese Social and Economic History Research] 4 (1999): 64; and Qiao Yinwei, “Minguo shiqi,” 35.

⁴² Ye Caizhen 葉采真, “Sanshi nianlai Minnan jiaoyu gaikuang 三十年來閩南教育概況 [Survey of Minnan Education over the Past Thirty Years],” in Xiaolüsong Huaqiao zhongxi xuexiao sanshi zhounian jinian kan 小呂宋華僑中西學校三十周年紀念刊 [Souvenir in Commemoration of the Thirtieth Anniversary of Anglo Chinese School], ed. Gan Bun Cho (Yan Wenchu 顏文初) (Shanghai: Shanghai zhonghua shuju 上海:上海中華書局, 1929), 9.

⁴³ Bing Ling 冰凌, “Wo de fuqin Li Dan yu Yangshan xiaoxue 我的父亲李丹与洋山小学 [My Father Li Dan and Yangshan Elementary School],” Shishi wenshi ziliao di san ji 石狮文史资料第3辑 [Historical Records of Shishi Volume 3] (Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Fujiansheng Shishishi weiyuanhui wenshi kejiao weiyuanhui 中国人民政治协商会议福建省石狮市委员会科教委员会, 1994), 197.

⁴⁴ Historian Shi Xueqin has described how Philippine ideas about educations also percolated through Chinese schools in the Philippines; see Shi Xueqin, Feilübin Huaqiaohuaren shihua, 188–189.

⁴⁵ Khu, “José Tan Sunco,” 7.

⁴⁶ James A. Cook, “Bridges to Modernity: Xiamen, Overseas Chinese and Southeast Coastal Modernization, 1843–1937” (PhD diss., University of California San Diego, 1998), 186.

⁴⁷ Lim Chu Cong (Lin Zhuguang 林珠光), “Puji tiyu yu guomin jiankang 普及體育與國民健康 [Popularizing Sports and the Health of the Citizens],” in Feilübin Huaqiao huiguo kaochatuan tekan 菲律濱華僑回國考察團特刊 [Philippine Huaqiao Return Home Survey Special Bulletin] (Manila: Feilübin minli yinshuguan 馬尼拉:菲律濱民立印書館, 1936), 5–7.

⁴⁸ Huang Hsin Lu, “A Study of Student Life in Foochow,” in Suwu Zhonghua xuexiao luocheng jiniankan 宿务中华学校落成纪念刊 [New Building Memorial: Cebu Chinese School] (Unknown, 1926), 47.

⁴⁹ Camilo Osias, letter to the Oriental Brothers, December 5, 1921, in Dongfang yuekan 東方月刊 [The Oriental Brothers] 1, no. 1 (1921): 14.

⁵⁰ For more on Konoe’s education diplomacy, see Paula Harrell, Sowing the Seeds of Change: Chinese Students, Japanese Teachers, 1895–1905 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 33–38. For more on Japanese Asianists in China more broadly, see Paula S. Harrell, Asia for Asians: China in the Lives of Five Meiji Japanese (Portland, ME: Merwin Asia, 2012).

⁵¹ Metaphorical retirement; Konoe Atsumaro had passed away in 1904.

⁵² For a recent overview of this engagement, see Ezra F. Vogel, China and Japan: Facing History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019) 132–202.

⁵³ Weston, The Power of Position, 49.

⁵⁴ Harrell, Sowing the Seeds, 33. Filipinos also viewed Japan as a model during this period. See Motoe Terami-Wada, The Japanese in the Philippines, 1880s–1980s (Manila: National Historical Commission of the Philippines, 2010), 11.

⁵⁵ E. Patricia Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 1895–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 11. For Hubert Lyautey and “laboratories of modernity” in Morocco, see Rabinow, “Governing Morocco,” 33–34.

⁵⁶ See Heng Teow, Japan’s Cultural Policy toward China, 1918–1931: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 157.

⁵⁷ Hamashita, “The Tribute Trade System,” 26. See also Seo-Hyun Park, “Small States and the Search for Sovereignty in Sinocentric Asia: Japan and Korea in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Negotiating Asymmetry: China’s Place in Asia, ed. Anthony Reid and Zheng Yangwen (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009), 29–46.

⁵⁸ For more on this reversal, see Vogel, China and Japan, 132–174.

⁵⁹ Harrell, Sowing the Seeds, 48.

⁶⁰ The most prominent institution was Kenkoku University in Manchuria; see Yuka Hiruma Kishida, “Pan-Asianism in the Wartime Writings of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Intellectuals in a Transnational Space at Kenkoku University in Japanese-Occupied Manchuria,” in Transnational Japan as History: Empire, Migration, and Social Movements, ed. Pedro Iacobelli, Danton Leary, and Shinnosuke Takahashi (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 47–70; and Yuka Hiruma Kishida, “Kenkoku University, 1938–1945: Interrogating the Praxis of Pan-Asianist Ideology in Japanese Occupied Manchuria,” (PhD diss., University of Iowa, 2013).

⁶¹ Teow, Japan’s Cultural Policy, xii and 202–203.

⁶² See, for example, Curran, Educational Reform in Republican China, 20; Lloyd E. Eastman, The Abortive Revolution: China under Nationalist Rule, 1927–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), 48–49; Suzanne Pepper, Radicalism and Education Reform in 20th-Century China: The Search for an Ideal Development Model (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 159–163; and Teow, Japan’s Cultural Policy, 157.

⁶³ Chinese were not alone in discovering educational opportunities in the Philippines. As Su Lin Lewis points out, “Many Siamese students went to the University of Manila to study.” See Lewis, Cities in Motion, 212.

⁶⁴ Harrell, Sowing the Seeds, 27 and 65. See also Akira Iriye, China and Japan in the Global Setting (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 34; and Shu Xincheng 舒新城, Jindai Zhongguo liuxue shi 近代中国留学史 [History of Modern Chinese Overseas Students] (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian chubanshe 上海:上海书店出版社, 2011), 31.

Figure 3.1 Huang Yanpei and other tour members to the Philippines, 1917

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.