himself the same service as that of the American with his plow. The Chinese silk worker or the European weaver is a counterpart of the American cotton worker or automobile operative-fellow craftsmen again.

And again, every people shares with us the most difficult of all human tasks, that of making society, (government) and the great work of educating the children. Certainly these can be the basis of sympathy if properly presented. When the shortcomings of the foreign nation appear they should not be avoided but neither should our own. Any teacher can point to vistas of better government, better roads, better markets, better something that lies ahead of us and is yet to be achieved.

Understanding is the third spiritual legacy that the teacher may leave with the children. Said a "100% American" one evening on his return from a lecture about some foreign country, "But those foreigners do such foolish things." I do not believe that man studied Geography from a teacher who understood human nature. If he had he would know that the foreigners do not "do such foolish things"; they do natural things. There is a reason for the customs of foreign peoples. Their customs usually have some relation to their environment. It is intellectually and spiritually wholesome to have the children of the Geography class imagine themselves in the place of some other people American or foreign and then tell what they would do under certain circumstances. This will help both student and teacher to see that Geography is a study of cause and effect. Sometimes the effect is industrial; sometimes it is social; sometimes it is political; sometimes it is artistic. As long as Geography is merely a study of facts it may be anything, chiefly nothing. Facts have no reason to be in the book except that they are the results of causes or the causes of results.

If the Geography of cause and effect can be so taught that the student comes out of the school with some understanding of foreign peoples, and a willingness to understand them more, he is on the way to tolerance, which is the mark of the really educated.

Whatever may be the factual content of Geography or History or Civics, they give the teacher the great spiritual opportunity to create the point of view of respect rather than contempt; of sympathy rather than dislike; of understanding rather than prejudice. People of such spirit will naturally look to the peaceful development of the world by discussion, adjustment and liberty, rather than by force, destruction, and oppression.

Constructive Viewpoint in the Geography Class. In the study of the countries of the world many national problems naturally come into the Geography class for at least a passing mention, such as the story of Albania mentioned above; the work of the Danube River Commission which makes the Danube River a highway serving several nations, a real international highway like the sea itself. The access of Czecho-Slovakia to the sea is another interesting story. The League of Nations guarantees this landlocked nation an outlet by the use of the River Elbe with steamer landings on its banks, and the privilege of running trains over German railways to the harbor of Hamburg. As the world goes on many more like problems will come to hand, enabling the geography teacher, as no other teacher in our schools, to build up in the minds of the pupils a body of fact as well as a spiritual point of view which creates foreign policy by international conference, adjustment, and judicial decision rather than isolation, prejudice, arms, war, and destruction.

J. RUSSELL SMITH

THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN HIGH SCHOOLS

You will remember that Dr. Robinson in "The Mind in the Making" starts out with the statement: "If some magical transformation could be produced in men's ways of looking at themselves and their fellows, no inconsiderable part of the evils which now afflict society would vanish away or remedy themselves automatically. If the majority of influential persons held the opinions and occupied the point of view that a few rather uninfluential people now do, there would, for instance, be no likelihood of another great war; the whole problem of labor and capital' would be transformed and attenuated; national arrogance, race animosity, political corruption, and inefficiency would all be reduced below the danger point." One of the most discouraging things about life is one's inability to make any impression on the opinions of most grown-up people. Who has not after an effort to discuss, let us say, the labor question, or the League of Nations, been glad to change the subject to the weather, which, at least, offers no opportunity for violent difference of opinion? But we teachers of the younger generation, having what some may consider an unfair advantage over our audience,

may hope to try at least to bring about the "magical transformation."

I can already feel dissent in the air. Some years ago I was present at a discussion here in New York led by Dr. Beard, in which the consensus of opinion seemed to be that the wise teacher had no opinion, at least, in the classroom! The first time I addressed this association, many years ago, I was rebuked by an eminent historian for presuming to suggest that history might be interpreted by the teacher. So I must hasten to justify myself by saying that I have not an intention of suggesting propaganda of any sort. Nothing but the truth should be taught in any classroom, and the chief aim of any teacher of history should be to teach his pupils to think for themselves. But it is perfectly evident that nowhere except in the history seminar can all the facts of history be presented; a choice must be made. The responsibility of making this choice rests upon the teacher and textbook writer. By the choice of subjects for discussion the minds of the young people may be directed into the paths desired. All this is apropos of teaching international relations.

Fortunately for the purpose of our discussion the importance of our subject no longer needs any proof. In 1918, and even in 1920, interest in international relations seemed confined to a few, but the developments of the post-war period have convinced all but the most hard-headed advocates of "normalcy" of the existence of a world community. To students of history, economics, and social conditions it has long been evident that the intense nationalism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was merely a phase of development, recent in its origin, and no more sure of permanency than any other phase of human history. The increasing complexity of modern life, with its interlocking political and social interests, means either international suicide or international co-operation. Even those in high places who are estopped by recent political history from taking the path into the existing League of Nations are willing to admit that much.

If it is the chief duty of the teacher of the social studies to train his pupils for worthy citizenship in the community, what shall we consider to be the community? We have taken up the home, the school, the neighborhood, the city, the state, and the nation. Now it seems that the world as a community claims our attention. To train for world citizenship the teacher should try to develop (1) appreciation of international interests, (2) appreciation of the

contributions of other nations to our common heritage, (3) love of humanity regardless of race or color, (4) appreciation of the essential unity of human history, (5) pride in national achievements for world benefit rather than mere national aggrandizement at the expense of others.

To accomplish these purposes it is not necessary to introduce new courses into an already crowded curriculum. The essentials are World History (including the History of the United States), Economics, Civics, Sociology, Geography, and Current Events. Our first step is to be sure that these are required of all students. Untii this is done it is futile to suggest special courses in international relations which would be unintelligible unless based upon these studies. It is a deplorable fact that many high and preparatory schools have the most fragmentary courses in the social studies. Students are graduated with only Ancient History, or only American History, or only Industrial History. Such schools, far from preparing for world citizenship, are not preparing even for intelligent American citizenship. But even if we could afford the time a special course would seem to me to be undesirable in the secondary school. The aims in view can be much better secured by a new emphasis in the standard courses.

Just as United States History and Civics are fundamental to the teaching of national citizenship, so World History is fundamental to the understanding of world citizenship. It is strange to realize how recent is the movement for the teaching of World History! In a way it is a return to the practice of twenty-five years ago, but with a great difference. General History, useful in its time, was a compendium of information; World History, as now taught, is a study of human progress. In the interval between the two we divided our history into national compartments, thus emphasizing a separation which existed more in imagination than in reality. Mr. Wells attacked that sort of history in 1919 in his well known fashion:

"The History of England has the effect of something going on upon a doormat in a passage outside a room full of events and with several other doors. The door opens, the Norman Kings rush out of the room, conquer the country hastily, say something about some novelty of which we have learned nothing hitherto, the Crusades, and exit to room again.

"From which presently King Richard returns dejected. He has been fighting the Saracens. Who are the Saracens? We never

learn. What becomes of them? We are never told. So it goes on. The broad back of history is turned to England throughout. Its face and hands are hidden and we make what we can of the wriggling of its heels.

"The American story is still more incomprehensible. An innocent continent is suddenly inundated by Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, and British, who proceed at once to pick up the threads of various conflicts, initiated elsewhere. Someone called the Pope is seen to be dividing the new continent among the European powers. Colonies are formed. What are colonies? These colonies, in what is apparently a strenuous attempt to simplify history, break off from their unknow countries of origin. A stream of immigration begins from west and east. The American mind establishes a sort of intellectual Monroe Doctrine and declares that America has no past, only a future. From which sublime dream it is presently aroused to find something of unknown origin called European imperialism wrecking the world. What is this imperialism? How did it begin?

"Suppose other subjects were taught in the same fashion that we adopt for history; suppose we taught human physiology by just sitting down to the story of the liver, only alluding distantly at times to the stomach or to the diaphragm or the rest of the body. Would students ever make anything of physiology?”

When he followed this declaration by an excursion into the historical field himself to do what he felt no historian had the courage or the insight to do, he offended and startled the historical brotherhood. However, they soon began to realize that the public were with him and then began to try to beat him at his own game.

World History, sympathetically taught, affords the opportunity to give the young people most of the ideas which I suggested: Appreciation of international interests, of the contributions of other nations to our common heritage, of human progress, of the essential unity of human history and love of humanity. Of course, the teacher must be on the lookout for opportunities to stress these ideas. He must be careful lest he "fails to see the wood because of the trees." I remember one successful lesson of mine, memorable because the class for once did me credit when a visitor was in the room. We were discussing Charlemagne's empire building and his ideal of a universal state, which should bring peace and order to the distracted world. The girls were easily led to go back to Alexander and Caesar for comparison.