Talk:Yellow Peril

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as High-importance).


Anyone else think this should be moved to "Yellow Peril"? It seems like the right idea...elvenscout742 13:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, actually. -Silence 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't generally watch this page, so I apologize if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. I just wondered if there was a citation for the attribution to Kaiser Wilhelm? I think it needs one.Cnilep 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Added this part about racism towards the Japanese[edit]

"and later to the Japanese during the mid 20th century due to Japanese millitary expansion. "

This was prevalent in WW2 era war films such as "Battle for China." The Japanese were refered to as the "yellow peril."

Indeed, the fact that the United States fought wars against Japan, North Korea (DPRK), and the China (the PRC's army fought in the Korean War) within a short time period and the effect of these wars on popular culture (films, radio featuring Asians as enemies) probably deserves more emphasis than it gets in this article. (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

"Individuals with racial bias in the Western United States emphasized the "yellow peril" as much as their counterparts in the Southern United States emphasized adverse stereotypes of African-Americans." Could this sentence be any worse?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:17, 10 March 2006.


Can someone source that Gompers quote? I'd like to use it at Sinophobia (where you're all invited to pitch in ;). Marskell 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Green Peril?[edit]

Considering that Oriental styled villains were given green skin in animated shows from the 80s to present,could "Green Peril" be used as an analogue?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.G. (talkcontribs) 15:46, 8 June 2006.

Yellow (People)[edit]

Wikipedia has a page on Black (People), White (People), yet not one on Yellow (People). Perhaps the phrase "Yellow (people)" should be included so the international affects of raciscm can be better recognized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aminatam (talkcontribs) 09:53, 18 June 2006.

Might be because black and white found use in mainstream language while "yellow" continues to be a marginally racist term? -- Миборовский 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've met people from many countries and the word "Asian" is not so prefered because Asia is such a huge continent and people from different sub-region could look very different. Usually people from south and west Asia call themselves "Brown" and people from east, southeast and central Asia call themselves "yellow" (also with American aborigines). So I think "Brown" and "Yellow" could be used without a racist innuendo.Derekjoe (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part in my experience, people tend to use the term Oriental. Asian when in use in Europe tends to pertain to the Indian sub-continent. Except in a label for the Middle-East, it seems North America uses Asian as the term for the whole of Asia.

Nemogbr 20:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Nemogbr 20:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemogbr (talkcontribs)

Merge Sinophobia here[edit]

I'm 45 years of age. I used to see the term "yellow peril" regularly. And "yellow hordes" of course. The first time I've ever seen the term "sinophobia" is right now. Why consolidate on some neologism?

  • Sinophobia and yellow peril are two different concepts. Sinophobia is about dislike of Chinese by any national entity. Yellow peril is about dislike of East Asians (not just Chinese) by North American/European entities. Merging does not make sense at all here. ColourBurst 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Continuing on the Chinese strand, does anyone think that Yellow Peril has revived (not under that term, of course) in the attitudes held by Americans about the Chinese? I've read about unease in the USA over China's rising economy, and it seems like a revival of this mindset. Brutannica 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the western world has been taken care of their global supremacy prudently. So all emerging powers will be seen as threats and enemies. There're already tons of evidence of the China demonization by western media in recent years, that could be included in this article as a new edition of sinophobia.Derekjoe (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese War & Russo-Japanese War[edit]

There needs to be some reference here to the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars. Most historians agree that these two events engendered and exacerbated popular and political notions of the "Yellow Peril." I'll do it myself if I get the time, but if anybody is so inclined in the meantime...Lufclufc (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the Sino-Japanese war, since both are representatives of the Yellow Peril, but the Russians during the Russian-Japanese did employ some anti-Asian rhetoric. For instance, the song about the cruiser Varyag, by far the most notable cultural artefact in the Russian culture connected with the Russo-Japanese war (see the Russian article), contains the following lines: "We shall die for the Motherland in the open sea, where the yellow devils lurk." Interestingly, the lines were removed from the song during World War I, when the Japanese were allied to Russia. --Humanophage (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


In the Sexual fears section, there is a rather lengthy description of a "short" story. This is giving undue weight to an anonymous erotica short story. This gives the false impression that this "short" story is overwhelmingly better known that any one of the other listed fictions of that section. Moreover there are (unrelated?) duplicated citations linked to that description alone. Ergo, as per policy UNDUE, I removed that story's description. The original contributor is welcome to provide a more concise description for that story. Graviton-Spark (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam War[edit]

Why is there nothing about the Vietnam War here?

Feel free to add something if that what you want. I don't know if that is quite right as the Americans were fighting to protect the South Vietnamese government from being overthrown by the Viet Cong supported by North Vietnam, so the kind of official racism that was expressed against the Japanese in World War II was absent in Vietnam. But certainly, there were American G.Is fighting in Vietnam do have racist viewpoints about the Vietnamese.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You could reference the ironic reference to 'the yellow man' in Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the USA', which highlights some of these attitudes. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You could if you believe the lyrics of a song somehow provide a factual basis for anything. (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Few complaints[edit]

"Would had" is grammatically incorrect, i will change it. The Article is too big, one should be wary of adding too much unnecessary content, this is an encyclopedia, not a book on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talkcontribs) 06:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of ortography errors, I am trying to correct them. The writer keeps emphasizing on anti-semitism, racism and "white supremacism", but does not regard the era, circumstances and customs of the time in a neutral point of view. The label of white supremacy, for instance, was not common in the past times, and was not seen in such a negative light as the writer makes it. It seems there is some form of Bias to see leaders such as Willhem the Second as the only past leader who is "racist, white supremacist, hateful of Asians" when such stance had been common and expected at the time.

Is the part depicting a possible Germany-Japan Alliance in WW1 with the Zimmerman Telegram historically accurate?? I thought such Telegram was directed towards a German-Mexican alliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talkcontribs) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Zimmerman Telegram wasn't so much as a call for a alliance, but to rise Mexican nationalism, and potentially trigger a attack, or a least a distraction so the Americans would not join the war.--'''[[User:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#a70c10;">Charlesthe50th,</span>]]''' [[User_talk:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#422187;">supporting monarchy to the ends of the earth.</span>]] (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Besides there is very little reliable sources here. Marcosoldfox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talkcontribs) 23:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, racism was very common in past times, but I really think you are wrong here, Marcosoldfox when you are claiming that the article is saying that white supremacy was seen in a negative light by white people at the time. Nowhere does the article say that; people like Demetrius Charles Boulger and Anatole France, who spoke out against anti-Asian racism were a minority at the time as the article makes clear. Wilhelm's Yellow Peril painting was frequently reproduced in the late 19th century, which is surely a testament to the fact that it was expressing fears that were widely held at the time. No, Wilhelm is not singled out in the way I believe you are suggesting. Nowhere does the article say that Wilhelm was seen in a negative light by most whites for expressing his anti-Asian racism or any other racism for that matter. The article also mentions that Nicholas II of Russia held the same viewpoint, it just is that Wilhelm being an extremely bombastic man, was especially vocal and loud about expressing his racism. Wilhelm was a big loud-mouthed, pompous, strutting idiot who always did everything over the top. Yes, other leaders also had racist viewpoints about Asians, but Wilhelm was the only one at the time who made it his official foreign policy to combat the "Yellow Peril", which surely marks him out as unique. Wilhelm was the one who kept on obsessively banging on to anyone who would listen about the Yellow Peril, to say nothing of his loathing for the Jews, so if that makes him look bad today, then that is his own fault. Pardon the pun, but we should be white-washing Wilhelm. Even if you do allow that such viewpoints by whites were common at the time, read the acclaimed biography by John C. G. Röhl, which makes clear that even by the (low) standards of his time, Wilhelm's racism was considered to be exceptional. For instance, Wilhelm staged the first genocide of the 20t century, namely the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Nobody else at the time felt the need to wage a genocidal campaign of the sort that Wilhelm waged against the Herero people. Surely that makes him unique?

Moreover, I don't mean to make accusations here, but I really think your statement "The label of white supremacy, for instance, was not common in the past times, and was not seen in such a negative light as the writer makes it. It seems there is some form of Bias to see leaders such as Willhem the Second as the only past leader who is "racist, white supremacist, hateful of Asians" when such stance had been common and expected at the time" is profoundly wrong. You are talking here like only the opinions of whites matter. Did Asians or blacks for that matter at the time see white supremacy in a positive light? Even if you know only the slightest about Chinese history, Japanese history, Korean history, etc, you should be aware that the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans all vehemently rejected anti-Asian racism of the whites. Don't the opinions and feelings of Asians count? Or is there some unwritten rule that I am not aware of, that says only the opinions of whites count when it comes to writing history. Wilhelm anti-Asian statements at the time made a hate figure for Asians around the time. They certainly saw Wilhelm's anti-Asian racism in a very negative light. For that matter, they regarded everybody's anti-Asian racism in a extremely negative light. So why don't the feelings of Asians count here? Read any book or newspaper article from the early 20th century by anybody Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese, etc and you will certainly see that Asians had a very low opinion of the people who proclaimed all this Yellow Peril nonsense. For the French at the time, it was quite acceptable to force Vietnamese peasants to do corvée, but the Vietnamese themselves had a very different viewpoint about the matter; the frequency of peasant revolts against the French in Vietnam testifies to that. For American whites, it was quite acceptable to lynch black Americans, but the lynched black person undoubtedly had a different opinion about this. For British people it might had been ok to have a sign outside of a social club saying "No dogs or Indians allowed", but Indians were not ok with that. I for one believe that the viewpoints of all people regardless of their skin color do matter, and I think that you are very wrong here, Marcosoldfox to discount the viewpoints of Asians. I do not believe you are racist, but I believe you have not thought enough about this matter, and I hope if you think about this some more, you will see the point that I am trying to make. Asians certainly were opposed to anti-Asian racism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and their viewpoints matter as much as the viewpoints of whites. It seems strange that the feelings of the 415,001,488 Chinese, 12,000,000 Koreans, 8,000,000 Filipinos,42,000,000 Japanese, 550,000 Lao, 15, 000, 000 Vietnamese, 9, 606, 000 Burmese, and 45,500,000 Indonesians who are living in 1900 should be dismissed out of hand, and instead the article should be saying that Wilhelm's anti-Asian phobia was not so bad because most white people at the time shared it to varying degrees.

Concerning anti-Semitism, yes quite a few people were anti-Semitic at the time, but even at this time, lots of people know it was wrong. The Dreyfus affair says a lot about the French, but least, one thing does come out is that at least there were people in France opposed to anti-Semitism. So where do the opinions of the anti-Dreyfusards matter more than the opinions of the Dreyfusards? Even in Russia, which was not the exactly the most friendly of countries towards Jews to put it mildly , in 1913 a Jew named Menahem Mendel Beilis who was accused of murdering and eating Christian boys for Passover was acquitted by all-Christian jury at the end of a sensational trial. So at very least, quite a few people at the time saw anti-Semitism as wrong. And you have any further doubts about this issue, please read the article on anti-Semitism from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Finally, the Zimmermann telegraph was meant to create a German-Mexican-Japanese alliance. The telegraph asks that the Mexican government pass on to the Japanese government the German message to restart talks which were broken off in the spring of 1916 about having Japan join the Central Powers. Take care, Marcosoldfox. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I believe you have misread my argument, and there has been a huge misunderstanding. I had stated : Template:"The label of white supremacy, for instance, was not common in the past times, and was NOT seen in such a negative light as the writer makes it", and your reply has been that : Template:"I really think you are wrong here, Marcosoldfox when you are claiming that the article is saying that white supremacy WAS seen in a negative light by white people at the time." What I have stated, is EXACTLY that white supremacy was NOT seen in such a negative light; and when I have stated that the label of white supremacy was not common in the past times, I have not meant that the act of what we currently refer to as White Supremacy itself was not common, but that the LABEL and the USAGE OF THE WORD of White supremacy was not common at the time. I reinforced the thought that at the time there was no labeling of white supremacy, and even if it did, it would not be seen in a negative light or fashion, thus making the racist and prejudicial acts of the European leaders at the time common and usual. I am repeating the fact it was not seen negatively by the European populace and the European majority living in the countries of european majority. What made me argue on this article, was just the fact it was common and normal to have racist attitudes toward non asians at the time, and I argue it was NOT seen as a negative light to do so, but the article written constantly implies to it as if we had no knowledge of such, and that it was something completely new and inherently "evil", and even some emotion implied in the text. Also, I have never intended to imply that the opinions of Asians or blacks did not matter, I just assumed that, since we were referring to the Yellow Peril as proposed by the European leaders, we would firstly assume the reactions and the opinions of the populace under these same European leaders, not mainly the reaction and the injustice suffered by those other non-european people, viewed by an strictly asian perspective.

When I had issued complaints on this article on the subject of labels used in it, such as white supremacism, I referred myself to the modern usage and connotation of the word which was not common or normal in the given time and age, The negative connotation of White supremacism, and our politically correct definition of "racism" itself has been a relatively modern phenomenon. It seems to me that the article seems very differentiated from other main wikipedia articles, because its tones and usage of words seem not to be completely neutral or impartial. I wish not to argue in favor of any form of racism directed against non-whites, I wish only to ascertain the manner on which the populaces of the European countries viewed it, and how it was considered "mundane" or "normal" at the time. One of the most important aspects of a Wikipedia article should be its neutrality and impartiality, and so I decided to reconsider terms such as "racism" or "white supremacy" when it obviously was uncommon to be used at the given time, age and narrative. Again I do not wish to disconsider your knowledge of the historical facts and of the suffering and discrimination that asians and other ethnicities suffered throughout history, I wish only to describe and narrate the article more impartially, and neutrally. What made me argue, was that I have noticed, that you put a considerable amount of emotion and even some outrage on the acts of leaders such as Willhem the Second or Nicholas the Second, it is important to note I am not defending or arguing for them in any way, but in order to achieve a more professional and encyclopedia-wise article, I would genuinely suggest more neutrality and principally restraint of any form of emotion or modern day labeling; such as the modern connotation of "racism" in the article. I suggest an impartial writing and usage of words in the articles regarding racism of whites against non whites and an European form of writing and perspective (since the Yellow Peril obviously refers to the connotation and views the Europeans had of Asians), just as much as I suggest the same to be written in an asian like historical perspective on articles regarding chinese or asian racism to non asians. It would be best suited, since the article is about the european perspective of asians, not to have an strictly asian view of the subject. Again, I am not arguing for or against any of the barbarism and salvagery of discrimination and racism itself, I wish only to ascertain its narrative and usage at the time. I sincerely never meant to offend the Asian race, readers, viewers, historical characters or anything of the kind, for I, again, only argue for more neutrality in wikipedia articles, and that only. I must ask, what does the term "Bombastic" mean when you say it? Are you aware that the definition of the term is : (of speech, writing, etc.) high-sounding; high-flown; inflated; pretentious.

I appreciate your very informative replies on the matter, and I will make sure to become more informed on the subject. You seem very educated at this topic and I apologize if anything I had said offended you. I have noticed many of the references of this article are from books and magazines which seem of very high, academic quality and pricing, and are directed toward very academical and university wise audiences. Making this article a very interesting, informative one, but unfortunately, they do not seem to be freely available on the internet, thus becoming somewhat unreliable to wikipedia due to possible misconceptions or distortions of the contents from the sources. You must be very educated in Asian studies, may I ask, are you graduated from an Asian Studies university in China or another Asian Country?

MarcosoldfoxMarcosoldfox (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Marcosoldfox

I am so sorry for taking so long to getting back to you. Please accept my most humble apologies. I am so overwhelmed with my terrible work, my studies, battling my landlord, getting my car fixed, surviving an attack by gang of drunken thugs, and keeping it all in the line. It is hard to work all night and study all day. I have much to say here, and I never seem to find the time to put it all down. Also, this sounds stupid because it no doubt it is, but I am very shy even on the internet, and I am always afraid that what I write will come out badly. No, you have not offended me at all, actually it is a real joy to debate someone in a civilized manner.

With no disrespect intended to all the other people who have worked hard on this article and contributed so much, much of this article is my work, for better or for worse. I thought there were things this article missed, and I make it better. For an example, anti-Asian racism is always presented with the water imagery. Indeed, if one wanted to play a good drinking game, would see read this article and take a drink whenever one came across with the water imagery. Dower wrote about “rising tide, indeed, of color”. Russian journalists warned of a "yellow torrent" washing over Siberia. Lothrop Stoddard entitled his book The Rising Tide of Color. Richard Seddon spoke about New Zealand being “deluged” with Tartars. Note how French natalists and anti-Asian racists warned of a “flood” of Asians. General Erich Hoepner wrote about “Muscovite-Asiatic inundation”. Likewise, German anti-Soviet propaganda spoke of the "Asiatic-Bolshevik flood" and the "Asiatic flood”. Andreas Hillgruber wrote about the Red Army “flooding” Central Europe. With Baron Christian von Ehrenfels, it is a “Mongolian tide” which threatens Europeans. In the same way, Ehrenfels wrote the "flood" of Chinese coming to the West, that the Chinese were a "torrent of mud" in which Europe was drowning in, that the Japanese were a "polluting liquid", and that Europeans would not respond to this menace until the "waves" of Asians were up to their neck. Dr Fu Manchu wants to “inundate” Britain. It is always the water imagery that anti-Asian racists always seems to be invoking.

Turning to your points, please accept my deepest apologies for any understandings, and for any offense I have caused. I appreciated your concern about maintaining neutrality, even we have not entirely agree here. Just to clear the air, I am not proposing that this article be written from an Asian perspective. But I believe that an Asian perspective needs to be considered. On the different subject of the Shoah, the great historian Raul Hilberg once explained to understand what happened properly, one needed to consider the perspectives of perpetrators, victims and bystanders. If anything, there is not enough of an Asian perspective. After all, it is part of their history as well. This article at present looking at the subject via European and American eyes. I don’t really like that, but given this is a topic about prejudices of whites, that is understandable, if regrettable. One bothers me is one does not get much sense of how Asians felt about all this. That strikes me as wrong that the Asians should be presented here as vast gob, the subject of fanciful and bizarre theories, instead of human beings with emotions and feelings. That does bother me.

To take up your point about the Asian racism, surely if one wrote about the venomous “Yamoto race” ideology in Japan (the theory that the Japanese are the uniquely virtuous “Yamoto race”) together with the related, but different concept of Pan-Asianism (namely the theory that the Japanese had the right and duty to unite of the peoples of Asia under their leadership), surely it is the duty of the historian to examine the impact of these ideas. Whenever the Japanese went in Asia, they left behind a trail of destruction and carnage. The Rape of Nanking in 1937 is merely the most infamous example. And that’s not even considering the “Three Alls” of Japanese counter-insurgency in China, namely “Burn all, kill all, destroy all”. The “Three Alls” seems to have caused between the deaths of 4-6 million Chinese. And on top of that, one has to consider the “comfort women” as sexual slavery was euphemistically known and the ghastly experiments of Unit 731. These are the human consequences of the “Yamoto race” ideology. As this article notes, there was a nasty strain of anti-white racism within Japanese fascism, and the Japanese did treat American, British, Australian, New Zealand, Soviet, Canadian, and Indian POWs quite inhumanely. I didn’t say this explicitly, but given the way the Japanese treated everybody non-Japanese whenever they be Asian or not, the best thing that could had happened if you were Chinese or Korean in World War II would be to pray for an American victory. Many, if not most of the Americans fighting in the Pacific might had indeed had ugly anti-Asian prejudices, but in purely objective terms, they were fighting for a better future for Asia. Likewise, the Yamoto race ideology lives on today. In North Korea, after 1948 they just took the Yamoto race ideology, and dressed it up in Korean terms. Japan had occupied Korea in 1904 during the Russian-Japanese war and so by 1945, the Yamoto race ideology was only one that many Koreans knew. Just like in old Japan ruled by an allegedly divine Emperor, so too is the Kim family presented as being practically living gods. Japanese propaganda always depicted Americans as these ape-like savages who like to eat Japanese children. North Korean propaganda shows Americans as ape-like savages who like to eat Korean children. The Japanese were uniquely virtuous, but child-like race surrounded by a hostile world that only wished harm; likewise the North Koreans are uniquely virtuous, but child-like race world surrounded by a hostile world that only wishes them harm. War is the most beautiful thing in the world according to Japanese propaganda, as it is in North Korean propaganda (please note that historically Korea was a Confucian nation, and in Confucianism soldiers are considered low-lifers, so North Korean militarism is not a traditional Korean value) . The Japanese Emperor was presented as a hermaphrodite figure who both father and mother to his nation; in North Korea, all three generations of the Kim family have been portrayed as hermaphrodite figures who both father and mother to the nation. It is really weird reading North Koran children’s songs where the children thank Kim Il-Sung for have nursed them at his breasts. If you don’t’ believe what I am saying, please read this link: A Nation of Racist Dwarfs My point is, if one wants to write about Asian racism, one always consider the victims, whatever may be their skin colors. At present, the article about Japanese propaganda in World War II is really bad because nowhere does one learn about how this sort of “White demon” or “white devil” propaganda encouraged Japanese soldiers to mistreat and often kill American, British, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian POWs. The perspective of the British POW being used for “bayonet practice” by the Japanese because he was a “white devil” is just as important as the Japanese soldiers bayoneting him to death. Of course, you are correct that too of a focus on the victims can distort history, but at present one does not get sense of how Asians felt about all this “Yellow Peril” propaganda. As I have already noted, the focus on a European perspective in this article is necessary and to a certain correct, but I would like to see a bit more of the victims’ perspective.

If I am understanding your argument correctly, I would have to respectfully express some disagreement. It is very difficult, if not impossible to present racist people in neutral way. The sheer ugliness of these people’s beliefs and acts overwhelms everything else. On a different subject, if writes about the Shoah, it is almost impossible not to present the perpetrators in a negative light. I like to follow the great historian Leopold von Ranke who wanted to show history wie es eigentlich gewesen (as it was really was). I’m going off on a tangent here, but I’ll back to the main subject here in a just a moment. History is a both a science and art. Science is objective. Science deals with realities that must be tested in verifiable and repeatable experiments. So the theory of gravity is not just a matter of opinion, it is a demonstrable fact. Art is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So one man’s beautiful painting can be another’s ugly painting. That is why those lists one sees of the ten most beautiful woman in the world are purely subjective because beauty is always subjective. History deals with objective phenomena. It is just as much a matter of fact that the Norman conquest of England took place in 1066 as gravity is a matter of fact. One differs a historian from a chronicler is that a chronicler merely notes events while a historian seeks to explain what happened, how it happened, why it happened, and the significance of that happening. Some historians take the viewpoint that the Norman Conquest was a good thing for England whereas other historians would say it was a bad thing, while yet others would say it was an indifferent thing. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher privatized many Crown corporations in the 1980s. That is a fact, but how one views it as good or bad really depending on one’s view about what should be the role of the state in the economy. There was a British film called All The King’s Men dealing with the battle of Gallipoli, which to a certain extent I very much enjoyed. The film’s point of view was the entire First World War was to use of the character’s phases “just a bloody disgrace”. I would imagine that a great people would agree with that statement. But I was and am disturbed by that. In 1915, the Ottoman government was waging genocide against the Armenian minority. If the British had won the battle of Gallipoli, then a great many Armenian lives would have been saved. So if the film were really honest, it would had shown the Special Organization of the Committee of Union and Progress raping and hacking to death Armenian women and children, and then explained that defeating the Ottomans at Gallipoli was still a bad thing to do because the Armenians don't matter. Perhaps that is just my point of view on that issue, but I believe it is just as valid as the one expressed in the film.

Beyond, there is a school of history in France known as the Annales school, which insists that all political events are more foam on the waves of history, and argue that is really important in history are long-term structural factors like geography, demography, economics and the environment. So if one subscribes to the French Annales school, then all of the events of our time like elections, wars and whatnot are merely unimportant. As someone familiar with the writings of the French Annales school, I have considerable respect for them, but I cannot accept everything that they are saying. Case in point. China in the 1970s was an economic basket-case, impoverished by thirty years of Communist madness. In 1970s China, it was considered the height of luxury if one had two communal toilets on one’s street for everybody to use, instead of the normal one. As it was, the succession struggle after the death of Mao in 1976 was won by one Deng Xiaoping, who starting in 1978 introduced the market reforms which made China into the economic giant it is today. With all due respect to Marc Bloch and Fernand Braudel, politics do matter as the example of China proves. The French Annales school has much to say that is interesting, but their approach cannot explain the economic rise of China. So in insisting on political history, I am in fact POV-pushing because I am rejecting the approach of the French Annales school, which in the words of Braudel saw political history as a meaningless histoire des événements (history of events), or as Braudel put it on another occasion "foam on the surface of the waves".

To just to use an example of what I am talking about, consider the different explanations given for the rise of National Socialism: 1) A pathological national character. That because Martin Luther was a nasty anti-Semite, pretty all Germans were vicious anti-Semites to their core. One sees a lot of that in articles on Luther around here. But this approach is as flawed as it is racist. Luther died in 1546 and the Holocaust didn’t begin in 1941, so to say the die was cast as early in the 16th century is absurd. Quite a lot happened between 1546 and 1941. How was it possible if everybody in Germany was an anti-Semite for Jews to be granted at least in theory equal rights in the constitution of 1871? During the election campaigns of the early 1930s, only 10% of Nazi posters had explicitly anti-Semitic themes, which would suggest that anti-Semitism was not a major vote-getter for the Nazis. So this theory which has been endorsed by several historians is wrong.

2) The workings of capitalism. So theory is very popular with the left, and one see a lot of it around here again. But it vastly exaggerates the extent of business donations to the NSDAP. In fact, the Nazis got very little money from big business and depended mostly on donations from ordinary people. Not only was very little business pressure on President von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor, but it would had worked anyhow. Case in point. In 1932, the government of Franz von Papen brought in a law which allowed farmers forcing foreclosure by the banks more time to repay their loans. In January 1933, following strong pressure from the banks, Papen’s successor, General Kurt von Schleicher decided to let this law die. Hindenburg, who was very close to the farmers’ lobby came out in favor of extending this law, even if it hurt the balance sheets at the banks. So clearly, Hindenburg was not the puppet of big business of left-wing imagination, so business could not have pressured Hindenburg into appointing Hitler chancellor.

3) The Treaty of Versailles caused Hitler’s rise. This is extremely popular theory on Wikipedia, but it is totally wrong. It is true that German public opinion overwhelming rejected Versailles, but that has nothing to do with the rise of National Socialism. Versailles was signed in June 1919. In 1928, the NSDAP won about 2% of the vote, yet the Treaty of Versailles was still very much in effect. The NSDAP did not make its electoral breakthrough until the 1930 elections. What made the difference between 1928 and 1930 was the Great Depression, not Versailles. Beyond, the Nazis had a lot of trouble winning the votes of Catholic and working class Germans. The Nazis won almost of their votes in Protestant parts of Germany. Within Protestant areas, they were much likely to win votes within rural areas than urban ones. In urban Protestant areas, there is definite relationship between income level and the tendency to vote National Socialist. The higher the income level, the more likely one was to vote Nazi and the lower income, one was less likely to vote Nazi. So did Protestant Germans dislike Versailles more than Catholics or high income Protestants more than low income Protestants? No evidence for that. If Versailles was the main reason why people started voting Nazi in 1930 (a good 11 years after the treaty was signed in 1919), and if almost all Germans dislike Versailles, then did the Nazis have trouble winning the votes of certain elements of German society?

4) According to the historian Fredrich Meinecke, National Socialism was just the result of a series of freak “accidents” like the election of Paul von Hindenburg as president. This is an extremely stupid theory since the things that Meinecke calls “accidents” are not accidents at all. In 1925 14, 655, 641 Germans voted for Hindenburg, and presumably most of them did not vote for him by mistake. The election of Hindenburg was not an accident. It can only be an accident if 14 million people did not mean to vote for Hindenburg and just did it by mistake, which is clearly ludicrous.

5) The Sonderweg theory, which holds Germany went on an abnormal course of development in the 19th century. There is something to this theory, but it is far too teleological. Moreover, just what is the “normal” course of development that Germany supposedly departed from? And gives the impression that National Socialism was inevitable and there was no way to avoid it, which is not right. At most, the Sonderweg theory explains what made National Socialism possible, not why they came to power.

5) Individuals made bad choices, a theory mostly promoted by Karl Dietrich Bracher and Henry Ashby Turner. That is the correct theory, and it is the one I subscribe to. Whenever I write about this subject, that is the interpretation I follow. Yes, that is not neutral, but neutrality in history is something that only be aimed for, never achieved.

I always try to keep my own views out of an article and to remain as neutral as possible, but inevitably one has to choose one interpretation of history to explain what happened and why. There are always different interpretation of history out there to choose from, so by definition any historical article on Wikipedia is always going to be POV-ish in one way or another. I just try to pick the most correct interpretation and the one that is the consensus viewpoint amongst historians (that can be tricky at times; historians are always advancing different interpretations). I don’t really like E.H. Carr because he was a Stalinist hack who gloried the Soviet Union and somehow almost always managed to avoid talking about the millions of deaths caused by Communism together with the attendant suffering in the Gulag and in the prisons, but there is something to his theory about “facts of the past” (historical information out there) and “facts of history” (historical information historians have decided to include in their work). Politically and intellectually, I am much more closer to Carr’s antagonist Geoffrey Elton, but I will give credit where credit is due. I don’t totally agree with Carr’s theories of “facts of the past” vs “facts of history” with historians arbitrarily choosing which of the former to turn into the latter , since there are some “facts of the past” so important that historians are bound to include them, but there is a certain element of truth to it. Carr himself proved his theory true by devoting his life to writing about the Soviet Union without hardly ever mentioning the millions of deaths caused wantonly by Lenin and Stalin. There is so much historical information out there that one can only include so much, so those contributors who claim to be letting the facts speak for themselves are intentionally or not, being misleading. To use an example from this article, it is interesting to read Theodore Roosevelt’s introduction to a book about the Mongol conquests in the 13th century because he writes like this is something all new to an educated American audience. What this suggests at least to me is that the idea of Genghis Khan as the personification of Asian cruelty at least in the United States is something that was dug up from history instead of being a continuous folk memories brought over from immigrants from Europe. Genghis Khan was unknown in the West or least the United States until it become convenient to dig up out of obscurity to use as a reason to hate Asians in the early 20th century.

Turning back to this article, I’ll tried to give a fair overview of anti-Asian racism in different times and places. On one hand, I didn’t want to do a whitewash, but on the other hand, I didn’t want it to sound like something written by an angry Asian with a grudge against the West. Anti-Asian racism was common in the early years of the 20th century and it certainly affected immigration policies, but it didn’t dominate everything. Britain signed an alliance with Japan in 1902 and supported the Japanese against Russia in 1904-05. The fact that the Japanese were Asians didn’t stop the British from supporting them against the Russians. To be fair, anti-Asian racism in Britain during this period was more directed against the Chinese, but still it did not affect foreign policy. Even Wilhelm II, the man who popularized the phrase Yellow Peril tried to form an alliance with Japan during World War I. I’ll also try to explain the different reasons for anti-Asian racism. In Britain, it was more about crime and a moral panic about the supposed tendency of Chinese men to seduce British women into premarital sex whereas in Australia it was more the supposed economic threat posed by Chinese workers and again the sexual threat. That one thing that I believed that this article neglected, which is namely how frequently the alleged desire of Asian men to rape white women kept on being time after time brought up ad nauseam. Moreover, it should be pointed that the French civilization was supposed to be an universal civilization for the benefit of all humanity, so French anti-Asian racism is actually a violation of the standards that the French professed to be believe in. Likewise, the 14th amendment to the American constitution passed in 1868 explicitly declares that the United States is a color-blind nation, so the anti-Asian laws in the U.S did considerable violence to their own constitution. Beyond that, I didn’t I try to imply that anti-Asian racism as seen as abnormal. I wrote that people like Gladstone and Edward VII were “ few exceptions” after all.

I tried to be balanced and fair. If I had any sort of an agenda here, it was be revisionist (in the good sense of the word) by digging up information that a lot of people have forgotten, and let one see the ugliness of anti-Asian racism in its filth for themselves in a relatively neutral way. I don’t mean this as any sort of attack on the work of others, but there was a lot more to Wilhelm’s propaganda than having a nightmare. In fact, it was a key part of his foreign policy, first to form an alliance with France and Russia, and then later to form an alliance with the United States. The actual target of the German Yellow Peril propaganda was in fact Great Britain. I thought this was useful information to add to this article. Thank you much for your kind words about my use of sources. I prefer book and articles over internet sites whenever possible because they are more scholarly. It was rather hard to find good sources for this article. To give one example, the mass murder of Soviet Asian POWs is a subject that no book (at least until 2010) has ever been written about, so it was hard to find any good sources for that subject. According to Peter Longerich (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), the reality was much worse. The orders were to kill all Soviet POWs who looked Asian, which has got to be something of a first, albeit of a very dark kind. So, if my baby sister were a Red Army nurse in 1941 and she were captured by the Germans, she would have been shot for being Asian-looking.

The term white supremacy was in fact used at the time. For an example, note the subtitle of Lothrop Stoddard s 1920 book, The Rising Tide of Color The Threat to World-wide White Supremacy. I believe you are specifically objecting to the line Wilhelm II about being a fanatical white supremacist. The term was used at the time, but in a positive sense. You are correct that the term has a political meaning today that it did have at the time, which I believe is the rub of your argument. The term white supremacist today refers to people on the far-right, whereas in former times a number of people who were liberals like Woodrow Wilson who were white supremacists. Indeed, Wilson loved that the 1915 film The Birth of A Nation where the KKK are the good guys and the blacks the villains. Winston Churchill would be appalled by the fascist groups today who call themselves white supremacists, but if you had ever read any of Churchill’s writings against Indian independence, it is quite clear that Churchill believed in white supremacy. Anyhow, historians often apply terms that were not used at the time. Nobody in the Middle Ages thought that they were living in the Middle Ages or building Gothic architecture, yet historians frequently use the term medieval to describe a thousand years of European history and Gothic architecture for a style that started to become popular in the 12th century. Moreover, I don’t believe there is a problem here. Wilhelm’s favorite thinker by far and a close personal friend was one Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the self-proclaimed “Evangelist of Race”. Chamberlains’ magnum opus was his 1899 book The Foundations of the 19th Century, an extremely racist book even by the standards of the time, where Chamberlain that everything good and great in the world is the all the work of the Aryan race.

Wilhelm was a messed up character. His birth was a beech birth (he came out legs first), which can be very difficult. What made more difficult was this was 1859, and his mother, the Princess Victoria was the daughter of Queen Victoria, and so her vagina was covered up with a blanket. The delivering doctor had to try to deliver Wilhelm by hand, and rather botched the job. Wilhelm didn’t breath for the first couple of minutes of his life, and as a result, he had a writhed arm. It is extremely that he suffered brain damage as a result of his botched birth, indeed his entire biography reads a like a textbook case of extreme attention-deficit disorder. So one gets a very bad combination of an Emperor with a brain damage who acts very inappropriately who has way too much power for his own good. I know the term man-child did not exist in the Kaiser’s lifetime, but every-time I read about him, the term man-child is what springs to my mind. The All-highest Warlord to use one of Wilhelm’s favorite titles was an extremely immature, pompous, power-crazed bully who really liked to hurt and humiliate others. Being half-British in and of itself should not be a problem, but in an age of ultra-nationalism with identities being defined increasingly in racial terms, Wilhelm’s mixed heritage with a German father and a British mother caused him considerable psychological strain. At very least, Ian Buruma in his interesting book Anglomania, An European Love Affair explains Wilhelm’s virulent racism as a reaction to his mixed heritage. If you want to read more about Wilhelm, let this link: A Toxic Monarch. If I am going on about Wilhelm II, it is because that who is the one who seems to be getting everybody upset here. I think that rather strange that you write that Pancho Villa, Nicholas II, Lothrop Stoddard, Rose Summerfield, Denis Kearney, Emily Murphy, Christian von Ehrenfels, Horace Greenly, William Lane, Jack London, and Saxe Rohmer were all anti-Asian racists, and nobody cares. It is writing Wilhelm II and Wilhelm alone was an anti-Asian racist that makes everybody upset. I never wrote anything about Wilhelm being “evil”, but if you really want to press me on that point, consider what he wrote in a letter to Field Marshal August von Mackensen on 2 December 1919: :

“The deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a people in history, the Germans have done to themselves. Egged on and misled by the tribe of Juda whom they hated, who were guests among them! That was their thanks! Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil! Tis poisonous mushroom on the German oak-tree!” (Röhl, John The Kaiser and His Court, Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1994 page 210).)

Exterminating Jews is generally considered be evil. Later on in his Dutch exile, Wilhelm expressed nothing, but admiration for what Hitler was doing, praising him for showing no mercy in his war on the Jews and in a 1940 letter stated that Hitler was only doing the work of God. The noted historian John Röhl wrote:

“Even at the last, in Europe’s darkest hour, Kaiser Wilhelm II showed no hint of compassion, no sign of common human decency. Far from rising to the world-historical moral responsibilities of the “Christian” monarch he so passionately claimed to be, he surveyed the death and destruction all around him and exulted. He gazed upon the greatest evil and declared it to the work of God”. (Röhl, John The Kaiser and His Court, Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1994 pages 211-212).

The term bombastic, at least I am using it means loud, noisy, and opinionated in very obnoxious sort of way. That adjective gets used often with regards to Wilhelm II. However, the pretentious and inflated are also terms that define Wilhelm II very well. A typical bombastic statement from him was the note he wrote on the margin about the Hague treaty when he declared that he was going to shit on this treaty he had just signed, he was going to shit on the all people who signed this treaty, and he was going to shit on the whole idea of peace itself. Besides for reflecting Wilhelm’s obsession with excrement and defecation that was understandable only to himself, his marginal comments are a monumental act of hypocrisy on his part. The whole idea behind Wilhelm’s entire philosophy was that human beings are not equal, and those of royal blood were naturally so much better than the common folk. As such, emperors like himself would naturally much more morally better people than the masses, which was why democracy was supposedly such a bad thing for Germany. Writing that you intend to violate a treaty you had just signed and given your word to obey is however you want to cut it, extremely amoral.

I would not call myself a Sinologist, but I do know a thing or two about the Chinese and I can speak and write some Mandarin. My literature-crazed sister who has read nearly every single great book in the history of the world once read a five-volume Chinese novel called The Story of the Stone, and was so impressed that she insisted that I had to read it. Last year, in class, there was a girl who giving a presentation on The Story of the Stone, and I kept thinking to myself that you’ll got it all wrong. She was saying that the novel was a Romano and Juliet love story, but that is totally incorrect. To briefly summarize, there is a stone that can move and talk (don’t’ ask how), and wants to be in love. A Taoist wise sage tells the stone that love is an illusion. But the stone is relentless, so the stone is reborn as a strange boy named Jia Baoyu. Jia has two girls in his life. He likes Xue Baochai (whom his parents are planning him to marry off to), but loves his cousin Lin Daiyu. Lin in her turn loves him back, but they never get a chance to declare their love for one another. Jia is tricked into marrying Xue, whereas Lin dies of a broken heart, and her soul is turned into a flower. Later on Jia meets the flower which is Lin, and she tries to touch him, but al he says this is just a stupid flower. At the end of the novel, Jia realizes love is illusion, dies and gets turned back into a stone. The point is the comparison with Romano and Juliet is wrong. Jia and Lin were never supposed to be together; instead they both had to suffer for love to realize love is an illusion. This story which concerns the fall and decline of the wealthy Jia family is also a Buddhist fable is very different from the Western mentality.

As for myself, 哪里 ("it is nothing" in Mandarin, a polite way of saying no), I am not that smart. I am just an impoverished gentleman-scholar who is stuck with an awful job that I hate, and hope to depart from very soon. I spent so many years chasing after Clio (the muse, not a girl). I love Clio so much, but she does not love me back. I have a rule that I only asked a girl out only once; if she decides she really likes me after all, than she can ask me out. I only offer my hand, and if it is refused, never again. I’ll decided to apply the same rules to Clio, whose has spurned me quite a few times. Right now, I am studying Mandarin at the local Anglian college. I very hope to be diplomat, which so more certainly suitable for a gentleman-scholar, and have the additional benefit of allowing me to leave this terrible country for good. At least, I hope to have better future than I do a past. I am sorry for the length of this post and I hope that I explained position on this matter. Please accept my apologies for any rudeness and a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a lot of ortography errors, I am trying to correct them." Oh sweet irony... Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lies and Wikipedia[edit]

"Wilhelm was a fanatical white supremacist who loathed Asian peoples" ... "to defend their "dearest goods" was an elaborate sexual pun" and so on and so on in that whole paragraph. I would much like to see reliable citations on that whole field, especially, but not only, considering the painting. Even the translation "dearest goods" is plain wrong, in fact it is "most holy goods". Also, the painting as such is open to a quite different interpretation - the front female warrior might, in accordance with the iconology of the time, well be Germania as personification of Germany, who is led together with the others by Michael, who is then not a personification of Germany, but of the Christian Occident. Bad article quality, which I do not want to attempt to correct or rewrite, but which unmasks itself as ideology- and hate-driven to the impartial reader. (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a hundred years after is a good time to break with WW1 propaganda[edit]

At first some corrections, which are backed by citations:

  • The term "Yellow Peril" was not coined by Wilhelm II, but rather by Jacques Novikow in his essay "Le péril jaune" (french for "The yellow peril") in 1897 (see citation in german wiki "Gelbe Gefahr"). There is absolutely no evidence that Wilhelm II ever used it.
  • Wilhelm had a dream and drew a sketch. The famous painting was not created by him, but was a present to the russian monarch. He never publicised it. In this context he warned the Tsar about a war rising in the east, which sadly proved true when Japan attacked Russia in 1904.
  • As the painting clearly shows, it's about a cross and a Buddha image, so it's mainly about religious concerns. It has absolutely no racist appeal, please compare it to the brutally racist cartoon in the article.
  • There is no historic evidence at all that Wilhelm II was in any way more racist than most of the people of his time. But there were many many people who were far more racist than him, for comparison: The belgian king had private farms in the Congo, where he "motivated" his slave workers to fulfill their workload by hacking off the hands of their women and children, if they didn't work hard enough (this is historic fact, see photos in Wiki article Belgian Congo and King Leopold II). Allied propaganda in WW1 ironically invented the story of german soldiers hacking off the hands of belgian children, supposedly inspired by the truth about belgian rule in Congo (estimations go up to 15 million deaths because of atrocities committed against natives).
  • In fact, Wilhelm II was quite an intelligent and in several aspects even sensible man. But he often proved too enthusiastic and straightforward for the diplomatic arena, which earned some of his international reputation. But most of the negative image of Wilhelm II attributes to propaganda lies mainly produced by the british "Ministry of Information" (which Geroge Orwell persiflaged in "1984" as "Ministry of Truth", which is responsible for the falsification of historic events and selling these lies to the public - Orwell's wife actually worked at the real Ministry of Information).

Please let WW1 propaganda end. We are all humans, let's love each other, we don't need those lies. Thanks. -- (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why past tense?[edit]

This article treats scaremongering about the Yellow Peril as coming from some older, more racist time, without demonstrating how or when it stopped being relevant and by whose standard. Finsternish (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yellow Peril. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Article edit and split needed[edit]

At 167kb current size, the article exceeds WP's article size by more than twice. Also, as outlined in what WP is not and summary, portions of the article are overwritten and too detailed, which is not encyclopedic. It ought to be split. The entire section on sexuality could easily be split off on its own. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

There were an extraordinarily long and excessive list of external links as described in external links: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." I removed 3/4 of them and am leaving them here in case they might be useful as resources. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)