Editor's Note Some three years ago in this Bulletin,James Peck raised Professors Andrew Nathan and Joseph Esherick,to their a number of crucial issues confronting everyone concerned credit,have seriously confronted these issues in their essays on with serious intellectual discussion of modern China.Only the impact of imperialism in China before 1949.It is clear, Professor John K.Fairbank responded seriously to Peck's after reading these two essays that what is at issue is more than arguments,and since then,the issues raised-as crucial and just a question of choosing "facts"'to support one position or challenging as they were-have,it seems,neatly been another,though this is a significant part of the profound forgotten.This issue of the Bulletin hopes to revive the disagreement between these two essays.The more important intellectual confrontation and debate that began with the Peck-Fairbank exchanges. questions are ones of historical interpretation,questions not only of seeing how isolated events are linked to other Special Section: Imperialism in China From its inception,many people have looked upon the contemporary events,but also of attempting to delineate the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars and its publication trends and being willing to evaluate the inevitable relationships the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scbolars,as a biased political between groups of human beings that characterize those group whose biases happened to coincide with a morally trends.It is precisely here that the most significant difference acceptable stand -opposition to American aggression in between these two essays lies:in accsrately describing human Vietnam.But whether or not many members and sympathizers reality. realized it,the formation of CCAS was much more than a The editors feel that the joining of this issue in symbol of antipathy to a cruel and immoral war.More intellectual struggle can help to clarify the nature of the world fundamentally,it was a direct challenge to the intellectual and we live in today,for imperialism in the 1970s is in many ways organizational hegemony of a whole group of scholars who,in a more formidable and a more subtle force than it was in the spite of differences in values and personality,had a century or so before the Second World War.Trends 'that can discernibly similar approach to scholarship:"liberal" only be rather tentatively seen in China before 1945 have since scholarship on Asia,most notably the vast outpouring from developed and evolved into a full-blown system of global Ilarvard University which has defined Asian studies since hierarchy and incquality.The other contributions to this issue the 1940s.Jim Peck made an attempt to outline the biases and attempt to explore some of the dimensions of that system in prejudices of this type of scholarship and to offer an Asia,including the future development of Japanese alternative.But somehow nothing happened.Perhaps the imperialism in the 1970s.And to remind the neo-Spencerian psychological comforts and professional advantages of"know apologists of the barbarity implied by their support of it all"eclecticism are too much part of American academia, imperialism's "modernizing"mission,the poetry of the but such an eclecticism succeeds in doing nothing more than Vietnamese is more than enough to make a beginning. avoiding the crucial issues of intellectual debate.Certainly,the The editors of the Bulletin certainly do not envision this differences between Peck and Fairbank were of such a basic special issue on imperialism to conclude the debate.We hope, and important nature that one could have hoped for to the contrary,that there is enough concern,both political wide-ranging argument and first steps in a basic reassessment and intellectual,to examine the issues and discuss the reality of the field. in an ongoing confrontation around these important questions. 2Editor's Note Some three years ago in this Bulletin, James Peck raised a number of crucial issues confronting everyone concerned with serious intellectual discussion of modern China. Only Professor John K. Fairbank responded seriously to Peck's arguments, and since then, the issues raised - as crucial and challenging as they were - have, it seems, neatly been forgotten. This issue of the Bulletin hopes to revive the intellectual confrontation and debate that began with the Peck-Fairbank exchanges. Special Section: Professors Andrew Nathan and Joseph Esherick, to their credit, have seriously confronted these issues in their essays on the impact of imperialism in China before 1949. It is clear, after reading these two essays that what is at issue is more than just a question of choosing "facts" to support one position or another, though this is a significant part of the profound disagreement between these two essays. The more important questions are ones of historical interpretation, questions not only of seeing how isolated events are linked to other IItlperialisItl • China From its inception, many people have looked upon the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars and its publication, the Bulleti71 of Concerned Asia1l Scbolars, as a biased political group whose biases happencd to coincide with a morally acceptable stand - opposition to American aggression in Vietnam. But whether or not many members and sympathizers realized it, the formation of CCAS was much more than a symbol of antipathy to a cruel and immoral war. More fundamentally, it was a direct challenge to the intellectual and organizational hegemony of a whole group of scholars who, in spite of differences In values and personality, had a discernibly similar approach to scholarship: "liberal" scholarship on Asia, most notably the vast outpouring from lIarvard University which has defined /\sian studies since the 1940s. Jim Peck made an attempt to outline the biascs and prejudices of this type of scholarship and to offer an alternative. But somehow nothing happened. Perhaps the psychological comforts and professional advantages of "know it all" eclecticism are too much part of American academia, but such an eclecticism succeeds in doing nothing more than avoiding the crucial issues of intellectual debate. Certainly, the differences between Peck and Fairbank were of such a basic and important nature that one could have hoped for wide-ranging argument and first steps in a basic reassessment of the field. contemporary events, but also of attempting to delineate the trends and being willing to evaluate the inevitable relationships between groups of human being~ that characterize those trends. It is precisely here that the most significant difference between these two essays lies: in accmltety describing human reality. The editors feel that the joining of this issue in intellectual struggle can help to clarify the nature of the world we live in today, for imperialism in the 1970s is in many ways a more formidable and a more subtle force than It was in the century or so before the Second World War. Trends 'that can only be rather tentatively seen in China before 1945 have since developed and evolved into a full-blown system of global hierarchy and inequality. The other contributions to this issue attempt to explore some of the dimensions of that system in Asia, including the future development of Japanese imperialism in the 1970s. And to remind the neo-Spencerian apologists of the barbarity implied by their support of imperialism's "modernizing" mission, the poetry of the Vietnamese is more than enough to make a beginning. The editors of the Bulletill certainly do not envision this special issue on imperialism to conclude the debate. We hope, to the contrary, that there is enough concern, both political and intellectual, to examine the issues and discuss the reality in an ongoing confrontation around these important questions. 2