WHITE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JAPAN: BRITAIN, THE DOMINIONS AND THE UNITED STATES, 1908–1928
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the first half of the twentieth century, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders were as “racist” towards Japan as were Californians. “White Australia” and “White Canada” evoked as much protest from Japan and were condemned by General Tojo as provocative. These sparsely populated Pacific Rim settler societies continually required their Atlantic Rim rulers to allow them to exclude Japanese and sometimes to permit discrimination against Japanese citizens within. However their London and Washington rulers were wont to preach fair play in a fair field and deprecated the settler societies’ mounting fear of a Japanese “invasion,” either peaceful or armed. Each society was torn between the dilemma of wishing to assert its “racist” identity while recognizing that its power was inadequate, and that it depended for security on the great white fleets of the UK and the USA. Thus there were centripetal and centrifugal elements in the political systems. Ultimately, the British Dominions were obliged by their lack of defence capability to defer to London. Yet occasional upsurges of sentiment and incidents compromised Anglo-Japanese relations. Thus, in 1926, Canadian demands for exclusion were so peremptory that the important Kokumin newspaper said that Gaimusho (Japanese Foreign Office) was apprehensive of a period of “grave consequences,” where diplomatic relations would be very strained. The Dominions were the Achille’s heel of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, as important as the USA in maintaining “an invisible colour line” around Japan, which checked its legitimate expansion, and denying that “evasive ambition of the recognition of racial equality.” The paper may serve a useful function in shedding light on a gap in our historical knowledge. The struggle for mastery in the Pacific before 1941 has too often been perceived as centering on the rivalry of the three sea powers
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".