semi-colonialism and journalistic sphere of influence

SEMI-COLONIALISM AND JOURNALISTIC

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

British!American press competition in early

twentieth-century China

Yong Z. Volz and Chin-Chuan Lee

British!American press competition occurred in semi-colonial China in the early twentieth century,

when the United States, as a rising world power, challenged the British monopoly by advocating

an ‘‘Open Door Policy.’’ While the British and American presses in China strengthened the

cohesion of their respective expatriate communities, we maintain that these newspapers also

contributed in a fundamental way to the colonial reconfiguration and power redistribution

between Britain and the United States as they vied for influence with different ideas and practices

of colonialism. The historical legacies of semi-colonialism are relevant to contemporary

globalization where countries are growing more interconnected while constantly competing for

power and privilege.

KEYWORDS British!American competition; colonialism; foreign press; press competition;

semi-colonialism

Introduction

Westerners often took their newspapers, alongside other institutions such as banks

and clubs, on their colonial ventures. In the early twentieth century, multiple imperialist

powers*Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States*continued to

carve respective spheres of influence and to contend for supremacy in China. In addition

to being actively involved in Chinese-language publishing to influence the local Chinese,

various colonizers published more than 100 foreign-language newspapers in major

Chinese cities (Chao, 1931; Chen, 1937). What was their motivation for starting those

foreign-language newspapers? What kind of readership did the newspapers serve?

More pointedly, what was their role in the imperial!colonial configuration? This

paper focuses on British and American competition over English-language newspaper

publishing in China from the 1900s to the early 1930s, a period that marked increasing

American imperial expansion, thus challenging Britain’s long predominance in the colonial

movement.

Edward Said’s seminal work on Orientalism explores the dominant relationship that

the modern metropolitan West imposed on its overseas territories (Said, 1978). He

contends that literature, social science and popular culture helped create a fetishized

image of the Orient as a corollary of*or as an adversary to*Western culture in ways that

justified colonial exploitation. More recent postcolonial scholarship has shifted the focus to

the reciprocal relationship between the colonizers and the colonized (e.g., Bhabha, 1995;

Pratt, 1992). They claim that the discursive formation of colonialism and anti-colonialism

Journalism Studies, Vol. 12, No 5, 2011, 559!574ISSN 1461-670X print/1469-9699 online– 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2010.527551

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

was an eclectic and pluralist process, involving constant though unequal negotiation

between European colonizers and the native elite. The press was considered to be a major

site of discursive contestation over colonial attitudes and practices (Jones, 2003). Julie

Codell, for example, argues that the Victorian press in India and other colonies produced

‘‘co-histories’’ in which Britain and its colonies ‘‘textually constituted themselves and each

other.’’ The press constituted both a ‘‘site of authority’’ for imperial domination and a ‘‘site

of fracture’’ for local resistance (Codell, 2003, pp. 15!25).While the contestation between colonial powers and their subject peoples was an

important aspect of colonialism, we propose to also look at the ideological infighting

among colonial powers themselves. We view colonialism as an organically connected

international framework*not a bilateral relation between the colonizer and the colonized,

but rather a multilateral, interlocking relation that involved constant conflict and contest

among the colonial powers as they were expanding their empires. While the British and

American presses in early twentieth-century China strengthened the cohesion of their

respective expatriate communities and thus became essential to the very existence of

each colonial power in China, we maintain that these newspapers also contributed in a

fundamental way to the colonial reconfiguration and power redistribution between Britain

and the United States as they vied for influence with different ideas and practices of

colonialism.The British had a long history of English-language newspaper publishing in China, of

which the North China Daily News (1850!1951) was the oldest and most influential. The

American commercial press was virtually non-existent in China before the 1900s, save the

marginally influential monthly, Shanghai News Letter, and a few other short-lived

periodicals (Chao, 1931). In 1901, Willis Gray founded the first American daily, Shanghai

Times, but it was sold to the British interest in 1911 (Powell, 1936). The 1910s and the

1920s, however, began to witness a solid, vigorous growth of the American press in China.

By the mid-1930s, in Shanghai alone, Americans published six newspapers or news

magazines compared with the British’s eight (Ma, 1935). Despite their commercial nature

and private ownership, both the British and American newspapers were political in

essence and nationalist at heart. As American correspondent Don Patterson (1922, p. 3)

observed, the foreign press in China was ‘‘almost by necessity actuated by the national

interests of its editors and owners.’’ Our analysis will show that the newspapers were

almost unanimous in echoing their governments’ China policies and in mobilizing support

for their expansionist goals. In a very real sense, the newspaper editors were principal

spokespersons, ideologists, and organizers of the British and American expatriate

communities in China. They served as de facto informal diplomats between the Chinese

and their governments, and reshaped the colonial discourse to compete for imperialist

influences.

We have examined a varied body of primary materials on British!American press

competition in China in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Principal among

them are the memoirs, personal correspondence, notes, and travelogues by British and

American editors, collected from the Western Historical Manuscript Collection in Missouri

and the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University. We have also retrieved articles

from the foreign press in China (e.g., the China Weekly Review and North China Daily News),

from major British and American newspapers (e.g. the New York Times and The (London)

Times), and from Chinese official documents and publications. We shall (1) examine the

context and concept of what is called ‘‘semi-colonialism’’ and its implications for foreign

560 YONG Z. VOLZ AND CHIN-CHUAN LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

press competition in China; (2) identify the historical conditions that gave rise to the

American press in competing with the British press; and (3) compare their editorial

differences and colonial discourses on China. The relationship between the foreign press

and semi-colonialism and its current relevance will be further discussed in the conclusion.

Semi-colonialism, the Foreign Press and Its Audience

In the study of modern China, ‘‘semi-colonialism’’ is a widely used but seldom

defined concept. Building on previous research (Goodman, 2004; Osterhammel, 1986;

Shih, 2001), we identify three distinctive yet interrelated aspects of Chinese semi-

colonialism that defined the role and limits of the foreign press in China. First, semi-

colonialism is a middle condition between imperialism and colonialism. As Said (1993)

defines it, colonialism is almost always a consequence of imperialism; their difference

largely lies in the degree and range of the dominant country’s exploitation and control of

the subject country. In the China case, although the Western powers had achieved a great

level of socio-economic penetration and implanted several foreign concessions in the

treaty port cities, they did not acquire a full-range formal settlement and territorial

conquest (as in India). Gallagher and Robinson (1953), McCormick (1967) and Wehrle

(1966) call this state of affairs an ‘‘informal empire,’’ characterized by (1) indirect political

and economic control, rather than direct rule, over a client state; (2) exerting influence

through techniques of subjugation but not via military occupation; and (3) being held

together not so much through imposed official structures as through unofficial channels

of influence. As such, the foreign press was expected to serve as ‘‘soft power’’ to

consolidate the ‘‘informal empire.’’ As will be shown, the foreign press was a central

political means of shaping, justifying and promoting the official colonial discourses. It

cemented cultural bonds and national sensitivity among foreign expatriate communities

through advocacy of their interests in China.

Second, compared to a full-fledged colonial rule, semi-colonialism implies a greater

level of indigenous autonomy from Western domination. Though enjoying extraterritorial

privileges, foreign powers had to acknowledge Chinese sovereignty and negotiate with

the Chinese government. Foreign newspapers were subjected to Chinese censorship.

British-owned and American-owned papers had been banned from the Chinese postal

service on account of criticizing the Guomingtang government (China Weekly Review,

1927; New York Times, 1929; Woodhead, 1935, pp. 194!6). Furthermore, to protect their

economic interests, foreign powers needed to garner support from the Chinese public

(Goodman, 2000; Walker, 1999). By appealing particularly to the Chinese elite, the foreign

press was expected to enhance the foreign power’s diplomatic leverage in dealing with

China.

Finally, the least examined aspect of semi-colonialism*and yet most pertinent to

this study*is that the formation of colonial practices and ideology is a dynamic process of

constant negotiation and contestation among various Western powers, each with its own

agenda and rhetoric. Unlike India, China was never fully colonized by a single country; only

part of it was carved up into different ‘‘spheres of influence.’’ Shanghai was a center of

economic activity and foreign press, where about 80,000 foreigners ‘‘of almost every

nationality and race’’ resided (Powell, 1945). Richard Feetham, chairman of the Shanghai

Municipal Council Commission, argued that in the racially and nationally divided city, the

SEMI-COLONIALISM AND JOURNALISTIC SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 561

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

leading foreign newspapers ‘‘occupy a position of peculiar responsibility, both as

purveyors of news, and as commentators on questions of current interest’’ (1931,

p. 230). The coexistence and shifting influence of various foreign communities provoked

intricate conflict and sometimes strategic alliances among them. As American editors

campaigned for the abolition of ‘‘extraterritoriality’’ in China in the late 1920s and the early

1930s, Japanese and European newspapers lost no time in attacking American self-

righteousness and reinforcing the anti-foreign sentiment among the local Chinese.The foreign press reached a wide and diverse readership. A typical English-language

newspaper consisted of three groups of readers. The first group was the foreign residents

(Americans, British, and Continental Europeans) of diverse backgrounds. American

businessmen, educators and missionaries who had lived in China often mentioned in

their memoirs that the English-language papers published in China were their regular

readings (e.g., Allman, 1943; Crow, 1938; Dingle, 1911; Service, 1991). The British read the

North China Daily News earnestly, while their American rivals also kept up with the British

policy through it (Powell, nd, p. 17). These newspapers, in a way akin to the early

immigrant press in the United States (Park, 1922), served to establish cultural bonds and

promote common cause among the expatriates while preparing them to adapt to an

unfamiliar environment. The difference was that immigrants in the United States aspired

to be incorporated into the mainstream society, whereas foreigners in China were mostly

sojourners.

The second group of readers included the Chinese elite. The American-edited

Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury sold an average of 5000 copies in Shanghai in the early

1930s, almost half of the readers being Chinese (Gould, 1960s, p. 121). John Powell (1945,

p. 12), editor of the China Weekly Review, found that hundreds of Chinese English-reading

college students were using the Review as their text. Chinese officials also paid close

attention to the foreign press to gauge foreign attitudes toward China. Yuan Shih-kai, a

general in Qing court who was briefly made the president of the Republic, praised Henry

Woodhead, British editor of the Peking Gazette, for ‘‘cementing closer relationships

between China and other countries’’ and ‘‘presenting the difficulties of our country before

the world’’ (Woodhead, 1935, p. 46).The third group was the foreign audience outside China. Most of the foreign press in

China had overseas subscribers. The Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury sold 2000 copies

overseas; North China Star sold 4000 copies locally and 4000 copies overseas (Ma, 1935);

the Shanghai-based monthly Far Eastern Review had distribution offices in New York,

London, Paris, Berlin and Tokyo, distributing 6000 copies worldwide (Chao, 1931, p. 78).

The North China Daily News was said to be influential in London, Washington, Paris, and

Tokyo (Shaw, 1973, p. 50). In addition, most of those foreign editors doubled themselves

as China correspondents for their home countries. The (London) Times’s and the New York

Times’s correspondents relied primarily on the China-based foreign press to file cables

(Chao, 1931, p. 3, New York Times, 1915, 1929). Writing from Beijing to his editors at The

Times, G. E. Morrison often cited American and British newspapers published in China as

sources (Morrison, 1976).

The foreign press sought to influence these three groups of readers. Western

governments recognized foreign editors and correspondents as ‘‘China hands,’’ while

Chinese officials held them in high respect and even appointed them to offices. Henry

Woodhead (1935, p. 79) was offered a lucrative post as political advisor to China’s premier.

G. E. Morrison, after 15 years as The Times’s Peking correspondent, became political


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

counselor to Yuan Shih-kai. Thomas Millard, American founder of the China Press, worked

as full-time advisor to the Chinese government between 1922 and 1925 and between

1929 and 1935. John Powell received $10,000 from President Chiang Kai-shek when he

was repatriated to the United States in 1942, after suffering from one year of

imprisonment by the Japanese in Shanghai (Hamilton, 1986). These editors and journalists

were also granted interviews with top Chinese leaders, a rare opportunity for a local

Chinese journalist (Morrison, 1976; Pennell, 1974; Powell, 1945; Woodhead, 1932).

Furthermore, many prominent American journalists came to be involved in China’s

partisan conflicts and civil war (MacKinnon and Friesen, 1987; Rand, 1995). Indeed, they

acted as informal diplomats between Chinese officials and imperial powers. It was claimed

that the foreign editors and correspondents in China ‘‘excised far more influence upon

governmental policies than have all the foreign diplomatic officials put together’’ (China

Weekly Review, 1928). The prominence of these editors, in turn, ensconced newspapers in

central institutions of colonial politics.

The British News Monopoly and the Emerging American Press

In the late nineteenth century, the British, given their overall presence, dominated

English-language newspaper publishing in China. Henry Shearman founded the first

English-language weekly, North China Herald, in 1850 as Shanghai was becoming a major

trade and commercial center. Fourteen years later, the paper was changed into a daily, the

North China Daily News, enjoying a reputation as ‘‘the Bible of foreigners’’ (Powell, nd,

p. 17). Hewing too closely to British foreign policy, however, it was not always well

received among the non-British residents (China Weekly Review, 1927, 1929; Powell, nd;

Shaw, 1973, pp. 50!79). With the British launching another 13 English-language

commercial dailies between 1850 and 1900 (Chen, 1937), the British press seemed to

have taken a monopolistic hold in China by the turn of the twentieth century.

The American commercial press, in contrast, had a minimal presence in China in the

nineteenth century, publishing no daily newspaper. By 1911, only the New York Herald had

a ‘‘patriotic Britisher,’’ W. H. Donald, as its representative in China (Morrison, 1976). The

American press, however, spurted in the late 1910s and the 1920s. In Shanghai, Thomas

Millard started the daily China Press and Millard’s Weekly Review in 1911 and 1917,

respectively. In Tientsin (Tianjin), Charles Fox founded the North China Star in 1918, directly

challenging the monopoly of the British Peking and Tientsin Times. By 1935, Americans

published 10 English-language dailies and newsweeklies in China, only one short of British

papers in number (China’s Department of Internal Affairs, 1935). The Shanghai Evening Post

and Mercury enjoyed a daily circulation of 7000 copies, second only to the British North

China Daily News (Chen, 1937). In the 1930s the United Press expanded its China Bureau,

so did the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune and the New York

Herald Tribune establish bureaus in Shanghai and Beijing (Chao, 1931, p. 87; Gould, 1937).

Meanwhile, the Missouri School of Journalism sent its faculty and alumni to establish a

string of journalism schools in China. The Chinese press began to turn to the United States

as a mentor; the Chinese press was said to be ‘‘predominantly American in style, makeup

and content’’ (White, 1935, p. 20).The expansion of the American press needs to be understood in the context of three

intersecting social and political dynamics: the British news monopoly; the expanding


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

American community with a shared sense of Americanness; and the progressive,

expansionist American foreign policy that set the tone and pace for competing against

the British in East Asia. First, the American press was established as a direct reaction to the

decades-long British dominance. Millard founded the China Press and China Weekly Review

to compete with the British North China Daily News, which, in Millard’s words, was ‘‘a

journalistic Solomon naıvely trying to form American opinion’’ (1928, p. 180). Millard was

but a prime example of American consciousness to wrest British news advantages. It was

observed that American news in the local Chinese-language newspapers was mainly

translated from European news agencies, particularly Reuters. ‘‘This Europeanized

American news was confined largely to the seamy side of American life,’’ Norwood

Allman (1943, p. 250), a prominent American lawyer in Shanghai, argued, ‘‘as most of the

agencies had national axes and were only too happy to blackguard and belittle

Americans.’’ Landing in Shanghai in 1911, Carl Crow (1944, p. 5) quickly noted: ‘‘It was

rather irritating and puzzling to us expatriate Americans to see all news from home

published as London date line, even the returns of American elections.’’ In reaction, Crow

and his Missouri classmate John Powell acquired funds from American interests and

started an American news agency in Shanghai to distribute translated news to local

Chinese newspapers.

The ‘‘American press’’ was often defined in rival terms to the British press. Crow

(1944, p. 5), then assisting Millard in establishing the China Press, admitted, ‘‘It was a

matter of national as well as professional pride with us to make a success of the American-

style newspaper’’ vis-a-vis the British ones. When the China Press fell into British hands in

1918, the American community feared that it would no longer ‘‘represent American ideas,

ideals or policies’’ because of ‘‘its nationality tangle’’ (China Weekly Review, 1925, 1926a,

1926c). George Sokolsky (1919), editor of the North China Star in Tientsin, urged his fellow

Americans in Shanghai to re-establish a ‘‘real American daily’’ that ‘‘should aggressively

protect American interests as the North China Daily News protects British interests.’’ The

expatriate American community proceeded to organize the American Publishing

Company. In 1926, the American-owned newspaper in Manila, Daily Bulletin, happily

announced that the Company in China was preparing to ‘‘establish a daily which will be

distinctively American in ownership, American in management and American in policy’’ to

‘‘give Americanism a voice in the Oriental affairs’’ (China Weekly Review, 1926c).

Second, this Americanist sentiment resulted from the rapid expansion of the

American community both in number and power in Chinese major treaty port cities, which

provided a broader social context for the growth of the American press. According to the

China Year Book (1913, p. 594; 1927, p. 30), the American population in China multiplied

from 3470 in 1911 to 8817 by 1924. The American business class began to take hold,

providing a strong newspaper readership base and advertising support. The China Weekly

Review, for example, was largely supported by advertising from American oil, banking,

insurance and shipping firms (Schuman, 1956, p. 35). According to various editions of the

China Year Book, the American firms grew from 111 in 1911 to 412 in 1921, and reached

551 by 1927. The British had a slower growth, from 10,256 residents and 606 firms in 1911

to 14,701 residents and 726 firms in 1924. In Shanghai, there were 3149 Americans and

8449 British residents in 1930 (Feetham, 1931, pp. 21!2).The enlarged foreign population led gradually to the formation of distinctive

national communities. Woodhead (1935, p. 207) observed that ‘‘common clubs, schools,

churches no longer suffice for the British and American communities in China.’’ Meanwhile,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

Americans’ advocacy for the abolition of ‘‘extraterritoriality’’ intensified the tensions

between Americans and the British-dominated European community in China. Arriving in

Shanghai in the early 1930s, Harry Carr (1935, p. 186) of the Los Angeles Times reported

that ‘‘Everybody hates everybody else in Shanghai’’ and ‘‘upon one point only do they

(Europeans) concentrate, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually: they all hate the

Americans.’’

The perceived isolation and European hostility developed an acute communal

consciousness among the Americans. They published directories of Americans and

American firms in China and established American associations to ‘‘keep up our feeling

of being separate from the British’’ (Service, 1991, p. 194). The American Foreign Service

for China was formed in 1924 to facilitate the expanding number and scope of American

enterprises, with more than 20 consulates or other posts set up in different parts of China

(Fairbank, 1974, p. 69). The American press was considered essential to nourishing

Americanness among the expatriates. When Cornelius Starr purchased the rival British

Shanghai Mercury and merged it with Shanghai Evening Post, he had to promise the

Mercury’s editor Woodhead to create a column for him, called ‘‘As a Briton Sees It.’’ The

new editor, Randall Gould, was irritated by the inclusion of a British voice in ‘‘our American

paper.’’ ‘‘I conscientiously altered his British spellings,’’ Gould (1960s, p. 129) recalled, ‘‘I felt

a bit grumpy as the Post suddenly picked up popularity with the Shanghai British

community.’’ A prospectus published in China Weekly Review stated:

In an international community such as Shanghai a newspaper . . . is of as much

importance to the American community and to American interests in general as schools,

clubs, churches and business institutions. Without an organ to lead, express and interpret

this opinion, the American community must remain inarticulate and play a minor or

negligible part in the affairs of Shanghai, the largest and most important city in Asia.

(1926b, p. 83)

Finally, the impetus for developing an American press should be seen as part of

America’s expansionist era. The period of 1898!1919 has been characterized as the

‘‘turning point’’ of American foreign policy, shifting from the Republican ideal of non-

interventionism to a new political ideology of America as Empire (Raico, 1995). The

Progressive movement nurtured the idea that expansionism was an American moralistic

mission to promote democracy throughout the world and to compete with other world

powers. It was during this period that the United States began to have a consistent political

and diplomatic program in East Asia (Fairbank, 1974). Having acquired the Philippines

after the Spanish!American War in 1898, the United States quickly emerged as a new

imperial power in East Asia to challenge Britain’s century-long dominance.

The visions and priorities of American Progressivists in China departed significantly

from the British colonial practices and discourses. As Walter Lippmann (1935, p. 376) saw

it, ‘‘Great Britain has a large economic interest in China whereas America has a relatively

small one.’’ In fact, American editors in China saw the US interest as primarily ‘‘cultural and

moral’’ (Ekins and Wright, 1938; Millard, 1916, pp. 339!63; Powell, nd), based on the

ideology of ‘‘manifest destiny’’*a desire to implant Chinese democracy in the images of

American idealism. They felt almost personally responsible for China’s progress, and their

writings made China America’s ‘‘most favorable charity’’ (Fairbank, 1974). Reporting for the

New York Herald-Tribune, George Sokolsky (1937, p. 3) assured his home readers that ‘‘the

most significant job done by Americans in China is neither the buying nor the selling of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

goods.’’ In line with the Progressive terminology of nobility and altruism, he praised

American missionaries to have ‘‘planted the seeds of a social revolution’’ by bringing the

Chinese ‘‘the light of modern learning aflame’’ and ‘‘a forward-looking, progressive, non-

opium-smoking monogamous leadership’’ (1937, p. 4).However altruistically and morally intended, the Progressive ideology promoted the

doctrines of American imperialism. American expansion in China had considerable

economic*not just moral and cultural*motives. Some scholars argue that the American

rhetoric about helping China was a cloak for its economic self-interest abroad (e.g.,

McCormick, 1967; Williams, 1982). America’s commercial interest was embodied in its

Open Door Policy, which sought to ensure equal access to the China market. American

trade was growing dramatically, replacing Britain by the late 1920s as China’s

second biggest trading partner, next to Japan. The United States made up 15.7 percent

of China’s total foreign trade while the British accounted for only 7.8 percent (Clark, 1932,

pp. 105!6).The altruistic rhetoric of the Progressive ideology nonetheless helped the United

States to smooth over its imperialist mission in China. This rhetoric was greeted by the

Chinese as an antidote to European and Japanese styles of naked exploitation. The

American University Club was organized in Shanghai to serve the American-returned

Chinese students. Americans also launched dozens of missionary universities, including

the prestigious Yenching University in Beijing. These cultural efforts unnerved the British

community. Commenting on Dr. John Dewey’s recent lecture tour in China, North China

Daily News urged the British to initiate similar efforts:

Why does not England send out some of her picked men from time to time to China and

Japan, who will so leave the thought of the country that when China’s day comes (as

come it will) there will be no question as to the ‘‘side’’ she takes? . . .We would use the

columns of the influential North China Daily News to urge on the British in this country to

‘‘wake up’’ in this matter. (North China Daily News, 1919)

Journalism figured importantly in promoting American rhetoric. Millard put Chinese

investors on the editorial board of the China Press in order to ‘‘present their point of view’’

and ‘‘refute misrepresentations designed to injure China and impair her national prestige

and credit’’ (cited in Rozanski, 1974, p. 94). President Theodore Roosevelt encouraged

Millard to use his paper as a tool both for promoting American expansion in China and for

transforming American indifference into supporting a pro-China policy. American editors

saw their China-based press as an important means of cultural diplomacy. Powell claimed

that his Review ‘‘has consistently supported the program of an independent China

that . . . (does) not become a colonial appendage of other European or Asiatic nations’’

(Chao, 1931, p. 76). ‘‘This policy,’’ Powell asserted, ‘‘has generally conformed to American

policy in respect to China. It has supported the Open-Door Policy, Chinese autonomy in

respect to tariff, as well as the abolition of extraterritoriality’’ (Chao, 1931, p. 76). T. O.

Thackerey declared that the Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury was ‘‘tolerant, kindly, but

firm on matters involving Sino-American relations; seeking for the ultimate abolition of any

false and unnatural barriers toward the friendly intercourse between the two nations’’

(Chao, 1931, p. 66). When American colleagues criticized the Far Eastern Review for being

pro-Japanese, its editor rebutted by saying that his ‘‘sound journalism and good

Americanism’’ consistently ‘‘fought to defend China’’ and the American Open Door policy

(Rea, 1928, p. 147).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

In summary, the emerging American press in China was a direct response to the

dominance of the British press, as US policy became increasingly aggressive in competing

with the British in East Asia. The complex dynamics and multi-angular relations leading to

the rise of the American press in China paralleled those that had defined China’s semi-

colonial condition. The American press’s presence in China*and the Sino-American

relationship in general*was not solely determined by Americans, or by the United States’s

policy, or even by the interactions between Americans and Chinese. Rather, it should be

seen as a product of the Americans as a newcomer deciding to challenge the century-old

British colonial predominance in the Far East.

Editorial Contestation Over Colonial Discourse

Wary of the growing American press influence, the British press tried to reassert its

leadership by defending its editorial approach to China affairs. Like Americans, British

editors put national interest above and over the journalistic canons of objectivity and

detachment. When approached by a German banker to establish the Peking Gazette,

Woodhead*whom Americans called ‘‘dean of the British die-hards’’*wanted to ‘‘be

assured that it was a British paper’’ (1935, p. 40). As World War I was raging in Europe,

Morrison (1915, p. 373) wrote to The Times editor Henry Steed, confirming that the two

British-owned newspapers, the Peking Daily News and the Peking Gazette, were ‘‘in line

with the British sentiment against the German influence and whose loyalty can be no

question.’’

As they developed a nationalist overtone, the British were troubled by the increasing

discursive power of the American press in China. Morrison (1909a) complained to his home

editor about the lack of coverage on China in The Times: ‘‘Readers will now turn to the New

York Herald for latest information from Peking.’’ He was particularly concerned about

misrepresentation of British interest to the Chinese public by the American-owned

newspapers. He warned that ‘‘the Times is only mentioned to be abused’’ by American

editors (Morrison, 1909b). In the following years, The Times (1925) made repeated

accusations that American newspapers in China were ‘‘anti-British agitators’’ who

exploited the Chinese nationalist sentiment for ‘‘their own ulterior purposes.’’British editors attempted to discredit their American competitors while currying

endorsements from both the foreign community and the local Chinese. When Millard

started his China Press in Shanghai in 1911, the North China Daily News reportedly urged

the Chinese backers to withdraw their investment from its rival paper (Powell, nd, p. 59).

Two years later, when Millard solicited support from Chinese officials to establish a

Chinese-language daily, Morrison of The Times drafted a memorandum to Tsai Ting-kan,

President Yuan Shih-kai’s secretary, dismissing Millard’s proposal as ‘‘bound to support the

policy of the American government’’ (Morrison, 1913, pp. 145!7). He warned the Chinese

officials that, if conflicting views should arise over America’s anti-Chinese immigration

policies (referring to the Chinese Exclusion Act), ‘‘is Mr. Millard in that case to forget his

American nationality and to support the Chinese government or is he to support his own

Government, for it is still an American editing and American paper under American

protection?’’ In 1917, soon after Millard’s Review began its circulation, O. M. Green of the

North China Daily News launched a broadside attack on Millard’s alleged pro-German

editorials that were in fact reflecting the then US neutral stance on the war. Green’s attack


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

nonetheless led British advertisers to boycott both the Review and the China Press,

eventually forcing Millard to sell the China Press to a British merchant in 1918 (China

Weekly Review, 1930).

The American press and the British press came from similar bipartisan politics, both

operated along the economic logic, and invented the fact-centered discursive practices

(Chalaby, 1996). However, they were, as Woodhead (1935, p. 245) put it, ‘‘hopelessly

divided’’ in their editorial policy toward China affairs. While the American editors

expressed ‘‘their natural sympathy for Chinese aspirations,’’ British papers were ‘‘rather

bitter and persistently uncomplimentary’’ (Berkeley Daily Gazette, 1926). China Weekly

Review (1927) accused the North China Daily News of ‘‘journalistic rowdyism’’ and its

‘‘critical, uncompromising and often insulting attitude toward Chinese institutions and

particularly political movements and aspirations.’’ Gould (1935) contended that the foreign

press in China was obliged to adopt a more constructive approach to China’s

development. Blaming the British press as hindering Chinese modernization and

democracy, these arguments reflected an underlying Progressive impulse among the

American editors to harness the socially responsible press for social reform.

Even British officials feared that some British newspapers would impede British

colonial ventures in China. In a 1926 report, British Colonel L’Estrange Malone blamed the

British newspapers for ‘‘always adopting the most reactionary outlook (on China), and

giving the worse possible impression of British policy.’’ Malone particularly contrasted the

role of the British press in foreign policy with that of its American counterpart: ‘‘Probably

the American press in China more accurately portrays the real sentiments of American

democracy toward China than does official policy here.’’ He continued, ‘‘Mr. MacMurray,

the American minister, is helped by this press, just as Sir Ronald Macleay, British minister, is

hindered in his dealings with the Chinese by the bitter abuse of the British press in China’’

(Berkeley Daily Gazette, 1926, p. 4; Millard, 1928).

The British editors maintained a steady defense of their critical editorial stand on

Chinese modernization. They considered their approach to be serving the best interests of

both Britain and China. Responding to the charge that The Times’s articles were ‘‘less

favorable to China,’’ editor Ignatius Valentine Chirol (1909, p. 525) said: ‘‘I believe that

though the medicine may have been unpalatable it did them good.’’ Wilfred Pennell,

British editor of the Peking and Tientsin Times, echoed,

The Foreign Press, and particularly the English Press, in China, has formed one of the

most powerful forces from the West which have been directed towards the historical

mission of modernizing China and bringing her into the world system of economy and

politics . . . The paper’s criticisms, irritating as they may often have been, were

undoubtedly of great value, especially during the period when the Chinese press was

in its infancy and hardly aware of the full meaning of the enormous and unparalleled

period of change which the impact of the West has introduced . . . Throughout, its broad

mission has been to interpret the West to China and by applying Western standards of

criticism to stimulate the deepening of change. (Chao, 1931, pp. 56!7)

Pennell not only attempted to uphold this ‘‘fault-finder approach’’ but, by dealing

with the more abstract question of modernity and affirming the critical culture of Western

journalism, he also aimed to delineate the proper role of the foreign press*and that of

Western Powers in general*in the process of Chinese modernization. Indeed, the British

editors despised the Americans’ journalistic practice in China. Woodhead (1935, p. 194)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

considered the American-owned North China Star ‘‘exceptionally friendly to the

[Nationalist] party*injudiciously so, in my opinion.’’

American editors, on the other hand, appealed to the United States’s anti-colonial,

anti-imperialist rhetoric that found popularity in China. Thackerey stated that the Shanghai

Evening Post and Mercury recognized ‘‘its position as a guest in China, and conducts itself

as a guest; not deviating in any matter of principle; but not nagging, harping or indulging

in petty scolding’’ (Chao, 1931, p. 66). This ‘‘constructive method’’ seemed to be widely

shared by American editors both at home and in China. The New York Times (1911)

reported delightedly that Millard’s China Press was ‘‘a live newspaper devoted to progress

in China.’’ A 1926 proposal for establishing an American daily in Shanghai stated that the

paper should follow ‘‘the best tradition of American journalism’’ and adopt ‘‘a tolerant and

constructive policy’’ (China Weekly Review, 1926b). When Gould (1960s, p. 166) took over

the editorship of the Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury in 1934, he pledged to be

‘‘constructively pro-Chinese as to editorial policy though we also criticized where that

seemed appropriate.’’ He even invited Kwei Chung-shu, editor of China Critic*a radical

opinion magazine*to write a regular column.The debates around constructive versus destructive methods came to symbolize the

role of the foreign press in China as a focal arena for expressing views on colonialism and

its morality. The journalistic rivalry between the British and the Americans came to a head

in the late 1920s when China was united under the Guomindang rule. Most American

editors supported China’s nationalist sentiment and campaigned intensely to abolish the

‘‘unequal treaties’’ that protected colonial privileges. They attacked imperialism and the

intervention of China by European and Japanese powers, and urged the US government

and other foreign powers to refrain from demanding Concessions.Holding on to the old treaty privileges, British newspapers advocated forceful

Western intervention as a right solution for China’s troubles, and reprimanded American

editors for ‘‘participating in the anti-British agitation’’ (Woodhead, 1935, p. 204). Several

anonymous letters appeared in leading British newspapers in Shanghai, urging that Powell

be deported from the International Settlement and his Review be suppressed (Millard,

1927, p. 233). British newspapers blamed the American-controlled Chung Mei News

Agency for providing ‘‘brazen falsehood’’ and ‘‘circulating defamatory and mendacious

reports’’ about British military treatment of the Chinese ‘‘solely for the purpose of

fomenting anti-foreign feeling among the Chinese’’ (Peking and Tientsin Times, 1927).

Furthermore, Woodhead published a highly provocative editorial in the Peking and Tientsin

Times, charging the American community with ‘‘semi-parasitism,’’ because this community

had been ‘‘founded and built upon rights secured by Britain and France over eighty years

ago’’:

[Americans] owe the fact that they have been able to reside and pursue their lawful

avocations in China entirely to the so-called ‘‘unequal Treaties.’’ But, unlike Great Britain

and France, they did not secure these Treaties by force, but by semi-parasitism . . .

American envoys followed in the wake of the victorious armies and fleets of other

Powers, and without sharing in the risks and hazards of war secured from the Chinese the

same privileges as those which had been won by other Governments. (cited in

Woodhead, 1935, pp. 204!5)

Woodhead warned the American public that they had been ‘‘doped’’ by the pacifist

newspaper editors and foreign policy makers regarding the China situation. ‘‘The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

Americans,’’ he wrote, ‘‘had been led to believe that the present upheaval (in China) is a

genuinely Nationalist movement, free from Bolshevik influences, and that ‘foreign

imperialism’ and the ‘unequal Treaties’ lie at the root of China’s troubles’’ (1935, p. 204).

He considered the ‘‘Open Door Policy’’ to be typical of American hypocrisy to champion

anti-imperialism while advancing American economic interest in China. More to his point,

the American policy in China was a betrayal against other Western powers, especially its

closest ally, Britain.

Conclusion and Discussions

In a sequel to Orientalism (Said, 1978), Said (1993) took up the theme of historical

resistance to imperial culture. Post-colonial scholar Mary Pratt (1992, p. 6) depicted the

colonial encounters between colonizer and colonized as a ‘‘contact zone,’’ or a space in

which ‘‘peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each

other and establish ongoing relations, usually involving conditions of coercion, radical

inequality, and intractable conflict.’’ This transcultural perspective emphasizes how

subjects and their colonial discourses and practices are constituted in and by their

relations to each other. However, most of the existing post-colonial studies have neglected

the interaction and competition among various colonial powers in the colonial enterprise.

This study hopes to bring to light the discursive contestation among colonizers

themselves. The discourse of colonialism constructed by the colonizers might not have

been as coherent or homogeneous as generally assumed. Holding different political goals

and economic interests, various imperial!colonial powers competed for political

legitimation and hegemonic advantages of colonial conquest. In our case, the colonial

discourse was not shaped primarily by the interactions between the imperial nations and

the subject peoples, but was a product of inter-imperial rivalry in the early twentieth

century. The colonial expatriates also played a key role.

The press was tightly affiliated with the colonization process. In addition to

constituting ‘‘the software of empire’’ (Nalbach, 2003) to justify the Empire at home and its

foreign expansion, the press provided a site for imperial contest over colonial hegemony,

leading ultimately to power redistribution and reconfiguration in the colonial history. Our

study shows that the British!American press struggle in China not only extended but also

constituted an essential part of their larger colonial competition. The American press

emerged as a challenge to the British dominance, and proceeded to advocate the US

Open Door Policy as an oppositional imperialist ideology to traditional colonialism. While

the Open Door Policy might seem to have been motivated by an attempt to obtain an

equal footing with other imperial powers to trade in China, its significance was far broader.

It was rooted in the general Progressive sentiment that encouraged the US expansion as

an opportunity to reaffirm American ideals of democracy around the world. Instead of

joining the ranks of Germany and Japan in the style of older colonial exploitation, the

United States initiated a ‘‘progressive’’ type of imperial expansion.

Semi-colonial China provided an opportune site and moment for Americans to test

their Progressive ideas during the course of contesting older European powers for world

supremacy. This historical context is crucial for understanding the story of US expansion

in China and the role of the foreign press in constructing colonial discourses. As the

Chinese government was able to maintain certain power relatively autonomous from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

semi-colonial domination, the colonial press came to play an elevated role as a soft

power of empire in facilitating imperial surveillance. Editors became unofficial diplomats

on behalf of their home countries. The press was a key colonial institution to win public

opinion from the local Chinese, the expatriate communities in China, and their readers

overseas. More importantly, the foreign press in China, serving respective national

interests, waged an inter-imperial discursive war. Each side attacked the other and

justified its national position, to the extent that the press triggered a repositioning of

British and American attitudes toward China, thus helping to reconfigure the colonial

powers in China.

The historical legacy of British and American press competition is profound for China

and beyond. The American press was instrumental in replacing the Eurocentric colonial

discourse with a new ideology and language of progressive expansionism. This revisionist

discourse of colonialism has paved the way for US global interventions as part of our

collective memory in the following decades. MacKinnon (1997) argues that the current

media environment in China is analogous to its semi-colonial experience in the early

twentieth century as multiple global powers are attempting to achieve economic and

political influence there. Many issues remain unsettled. The most important issue is

whether China can sort out its own position in the age of globalization and make

appropriate responses to the mixed challenges of enlightenment, neocolonialism, and

media imperialism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of a grant from the Research Grants

Council of Hong Kong (9041283-660) and additional assistance from the Center for

Communication Research at the City University of Hong Kong. We also want to thank

Huan Ran and You Li for their research assistance.

REFERENCES

ALLMAN, NORWOOD (1943) Shanghai Lawyer, New York: Whittlesey House.

BERKELEY DAILY GAZETTE (1926) ‘‘The British vs. the American Newspaper Editors’’, 23 March, p. 4.

BHABHA, HOMI (1995) Location of Culture, London: Routledge.

CARR, HARRY (1934) Riding the Tiger, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

CODELL, JULIE (Ed.) (2003) Imperial Co-histories: national identities and the British colonial press,

Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

CHALABY, JEAN (1996) ‘‘Journalism as an Anglo-American Invention’’, European Journal of

Communication 11(3), pp. 303!26.CHAO, MING-HENG (1931) The Foreign Press in China, Shanghai: China Institute of Pacific Relations.

CHEN, TZU-HSIANG (1937) The English Language Daily Press in China, Peking: The Synodal

Collectanea Commission.

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1925) ‘‘American Papers Everywhere Except in Shanghai’’, 8 May, p. 243.

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1926a) ‘‘Status of the American Newspaper Situation at Shanghai’’, 1 May,

pp. 215!6.CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1926b) ‘‘The Proposed American Paper for Shanghai’’, 26 June, pp. 83!4.CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1926c) ‘‘American Paper for Shanghai’’, 17 July, p. 155.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1927) ‘‘The Future of Foreign Newspapers in China’’, 23 April, p. 196.

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1928) ‘‘Newspaper Correspondents as Diplomats’’, 29 December, p. 189.

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1929) ‘‘Private Confidential: not for the press’’, 9 February, p. 440.

CHINA WEEKLY REVIEW (1930) ‘‘The Departure of Editor Green of the N.C.D.N.’’, 5 July, p. 168.

CHINA YEAR BOOK (1913) China Year Book, 1913, London: George Routledge & Sons.

CHINA YEAR BOOK (1927) China Year Book, 1926!7, Tientsin: Tientsin Press.

CHINA’S DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS (1935) ‘‘Statistics of Foreign-language Periodicals in

China’’, in: China’s No. 2 Archive Institute (Ed.), An Archival Collection on the History of the

Republic of China, Vol. 5, Jiangsu: Guji, pp. 128!30. (in Chinese)

CHIROL, VALENTINE (1909) ‘‘Letter to George Morrison, Sept. 17, 1909’’, reprinted in: George

Morrison (1976), The Correspondence of G. E. Morrison, 1895!1912, London: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 525!7.CLARK, GROVER (1932) Economic Rivalries in China, London: Oxford University Press.

CROW, CARL (1938) ‘‘Circulation Receipt from the China Weekly Review’’, Carl Crow Papers,

Western Historical Manuscript Collection, Columbia, MO.

CROW, CARL (1944) China Takes Her Place, New York: Harper & Brothers.

DINGLE, EDWIN (1911) Across China on Foot: life in the interior and the reform movement, New York:

Henry Holt.

EKINS, HERBERT and WRIGHT, THEON (1938) China Fights for Her Life, New York: Whittlesey.

FAIRBANK, JOHN (1974) Chinese!American Interactions: a historical summary, New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press.

FEETHAM, RICHARD (1931) Report of the Hon. Richard Feetham, C.M.C. to the Shanghai Municipal

Council, Vol. I, Shanghai: North-China Daily News.

GALLAGHER, JOHN and ROBINSON, RONALD (1953) ‘‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’’, Economic History

Review 51(1), pp. 1!15.GOODMAN, BRYNA (2000) ‘‘Improvisations on a Semicolonial Theme, or, How to Read

a Celebration of Transnational Urban Community’’, Journal of Asian Studies 59(4),

pp. 889!926.GOODMAN, BRYNA (2004) ‘‘Networks of News: power, language and transnational dimensions of

the Chinese press, 1850!1949’’, China Review 4(1), pp. 1!10.GOULD, RANDALL (1935) ‘‘Foreign Journalism in China’’, Peiping Chronicle, 13 October, np.

GOULD, RANDALL (1937) ‘‘Recruits Drifting in Add to China Staffs’’, Editor and Publisher 70(14), np,

found in Gould Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, CA.

GOULD, RANDALL (1960s) ‘‘Three p.m. Shanghai Time: a memoir in three parts’’, unpublished

manuscript in Sinologisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands.

HAMILTON, JOHN (1986) ‘‘Missouri News Monopoly and American Altruism in China: Thomas F. F.

Millard, J. B. Powell, and Edgar Snow’’, Pacific Historical Review 55(1), pp. 27!48.JONES, ALED (2003) ‘‘Welsh Missionary Journalism in India, 1880!1947’’, in: Julie Codell (Ed.),

Imperial Co-histories, Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 242!72.LIPPMANN, WALTER (1935) ‘‘Britain and America: the prospects of political cooperation in the light

of their paramount interests’’, Foreign Affairs 13(3), pp. 363!72.MA, LIANG (1935) ‘‘A Survey of the Foreign Press in Shanghai by the 2nd Department

of the General Staff Headquarters’’, reprinted in: China’s No. 2 Archive Institute (Ed.),

An Archival Collection on the History of the Republic of China, Vol. 5, Jiangsu: Guji,

pp. 131!49.MACKINNON, STEPHEN and FRIESEN, ORIS (1987) China Reporting: an oral history of American

journalism in 1930s and 1940s, Berkeley: University of California Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

MACKINNON, STEPHEN (1997) ‘‘Toward a History of the Chinese Press in the Republican Period’’,

Modern China 23, pp. 3!32.MCCORMICK, THOMAS (1967) ‘‘China Market: America’s quest for informal empire’’, pp. 1893!901,

Chicago: Quadrangle.

MILLARD, THOMAS (1916) Our Eastern Question: America’s contact with the Orient and the trend of

relations with China and Japan, New York: Century.

MILLARD, THOMAS (1927) ‘‘Undermining American Policy in China’’, China Weekly Review 5,

pp. 229!33.MILLARD, THOMAS (1928) China: where it is today and why, New York: Harcourt & Brace.

MORRISON, GEORGE (1909a) ‘‘Letter to Moberly Bell, July 14, 1909’’, reprinted in: Morrison (1976)

The Correspondence of G. E. Morrison, 1895!1912, London: Cambridge University Press,

pp. 501!3.MORRISON, GEORGE (1909b) ‘‘Letter to V. Chirol, August 31, 1909’’, reprinted in: Morrison (1976),

The Correspondence of G. E. Morrison, 1895!1912, London: Cambridge University Press,

pp. 520!1.MORRISON, GEORGE (1913) ‘‘Memorandum Regarding a Proposition for the Creation of a Chinese

Daily Newspaper, May 19, 1913’’, reprinted in: Morrison (1978) The Correspondence of G. E.

Morrison, 1912!1920, London: Cambridge, pp. 145!51.MORRISON, GEORGE (1915) ‘‘Letter to H. W. Steed, Feb. 17, 1915’’, reprinted in: Morrison (1978), The

Correspondence of G. E. Morrison, 1912!1920, London: Cambridge, pp. 373!6.MORRISON, GEORGE (1976) The Correspondence of G. E. Morrison, 1895!1912, London: Cambridge.

NALBACH, ALEXANDER (2003) ‘‘The Software of Empire: telegraphic news agencies and imperial

publicity, 1865!1914’’, in: Julie Codell (Ed.), Imperial Co-histories, Madison, WI: Fairleigh

Dickinson University Press, pp. 68!94.NEW YORK TIMES (1911) ‘‘Starts a Paper in Shanghai’’, 30 August, p. 6.

NEW YORK TIMES (1915) ‘‘Japan’s Claims Abated?’’, 5 March, p. 1.

NEW YORK TIMES (1929) ‘‘Newspaper Offends China’’, 27 January, p. 2.

NORTH CHINA DAILY NEWS (1919) ‘‘Prof. John Dewey’s Visit to China’’, 15 May, np.

OSTERHAMMEL, JURGEN (1986) ‘‘Semicolonialism and Informal Empire in Twentieth-century China:

towards a framework of analysis’’, in: Wolfgang Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel

(Eds), Imperialism and After, London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 290!314.PARK, ROBERT (1922) The Immigrant Press and Its Control, New York: Harper.

PATTERSON, DON (1922) ‘‘The Foreign News Services of China’’, unpublished manuscript, founding

Sara Williams Papers, Western Historical Manuscript Collection, Columbia, MO.

PEKING AND TIENTSIN TIMES (1927) ‘‘The Chung Mei’s Lies’’, 25 March, np; ‘‘Chung Mei on Nanking,’’

29 March: np, found in Randall Gould Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, CA.

PENNELL, WILFRED (1974) A Lifetime with the Chinese, Hong Kong: South China Morning Post.

POWELL, JOHN (nd) ‘‘Chinese Weekly Review, China Press’’, unpublished manuscript, Powell

Papers, Western Historical Manuscript Collection, Columbia, MO.

POWELL, JOHN (1936) ‘‘The Journalistic Field’’, in: American University Club of Shanghai (Ed.),

American University Men in China, Shanghai: The Comacrib Press, pp. 122!48.POWELL, JOHN (1945) My Twenty-five Years in China, New York: Macmillan.

PRATT, MARY (1992) Imperial Eyes: travel writing and transculturation, London: Routledge.

RAICO, RALPH (1995) ‘‘American Foreign Policy: the turning point, 1898!1919’’, Freedom Daily,

February!July, np.RAND, PETER (1995) China Hands: the adventures and ordeals of the American journalists who joined

forces with the great Chinese revolution, New York: Simon & Schuster.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

REA, GEORGE (1928) ‘‘Twenty-five Years: the Americanism of the Far Eastern Review’’, Far Eastern

Review 24(5), pp. 145!51.ROZANSKI, MORDECHAI (1974) ‘‘The Role of American Journalists in Chinese!American Relations,

1900!1925’’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

SAID, EDWARD (1978) Orientalism, New York: Vintage.

SAID, EDWARD (1993) Culture and Imperialism, New York: Vintage.

SCHUMAN, JULIAN (1956) Assignment China, New York: Whittier Books.

SERVICE, JOHN (Ed.) (1991) Golden Inches: the China memoir of Grace Service, Berkeley: University of

California Press.

SHAW, RALPH (1973) Sin City, London: Everest.

SHIH, SHU-MEI (2001) The Lure of the Modern: writing modernism in semicolonial China, 1917!1937,Berkeley: University of California Press.

SOKOLSKY, GEORGE (1919) ‘‘Foreign Press’’, Sokolsky Papers, 127(6), Hoover Institution Archives,

Stanford, CA.

SOKOLSKY, GEORGE (1937) Americans in China: an occidental view, New York: National Council of

Protestant Episcopal Church.

THE TIMES (1925) ‘‘Anti-British Propaganda’’, 12 June, p. 17.

WALKER, KATHY (1999) Chinese Modernity and the Peasant Path: semicolonialism in northern Yangzi

Delta, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

WEHRLE, EDMUND (1966) Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891!1900, Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

WHITE, JAMES (1935) ‘‘Chinese Press Goes American’’, Editor & Publisher X!XII, np.WILLIAMS, WILLIAM (1982) The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, New York: Norton.

WOODHEAD, HENRY (1932) A Visit to Manchukuo, Shanghai: Mercury.

WOODHEAD, HENRY (1935) Adventures in Far Eastern Journalism, Tokyo: Hokuseido.

Yong Z. Volz (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), School of Journalism,

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Chin-Chuan Lee, Department of Media & Communication, City University of Hong Kong,

Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

issou

ri Co

lum

bia]

at 0

7:26

10

Oct

ober

201

1

semi-colonialism and journalistic sphere of influence

Documents