Populations Adrift Education and National Defense Series Pamphlet No. 11 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS To plan and review a special series of pamphlets on Education and National Defense Bess Goodykoontz, Chairman Olga A. Jones, Secretary William D. Boutwell Mrs. Katherine M. Cook Ralph M. Dunbar Rall I. Grigsby Carl A. Jessen Fred J. Kelly Helen K. Mackintosh Elise H. Martens G. M. Ruch Chester S. Williams ★ ★ ★ POPULATIONS ADRIFT Education and National Defense Series Pamphlet No. 11 FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY ... Paul V. McNutt, Administrator U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION - John W. Studehaker, Commissioner UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - - - WASHINGTON : 1941 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 1 5 cents This pamphlet was prepared by Bruno Lasker in cooperation with the U. S. Office of Education. CONTENTS Foreword p age What Sets Populations Adrift?_ 1 The Evidence of History_ 1 Are They Drawn or Are They Pushed?_ 3 War and Migration_ 5 Whence Comes Man’s Inhumanity to Man?_ 5 The Case of— Italy_ 6 Germany_ 7 Japan_ 8 Tanks and Oxcarts_ 8 War—Sower of More Wars_ 10 Resettlement as an International Task_ 12 Problems of Redistribution_ 12 Some Hypothetical Cases_ 13 International Control_ 14 Trade and Investment_ 16 Temporary Migration_ 16 Refugee Settlement_ 17 Some Tasks for America_ 20 The Part of Education_ 21 Considering the Human Quality_ 23 Immigration Policies_ 24 Conclusion_ 26 Some Topics for Discussion_ 28 Selected References_ 29 in T HE PUBLIC SCHOOL, it may be said, has always been an instrument of social policy: everywhere children and young people are taught what their elders hold to be in the interest of society. True enough; but the social interest served by the modern school lies above all in the maximum develop¬ ment of which each individual is capable. His usefulness and his happiness require, to be sure, that he learn to adapt his wishes to the common needs; but it is no less important that he learn how, with others, he may adapt the rules and conventions which control social life to the needs of his own genera¬ tion. Where education serves the sole aim of training servants for the existing State, stagnation is bound to follow. Where it seeks to prepare each genera¬ tion to play its part in meeting new conditions and new needs, it makes for a healthy, growing society. B. L. FOREWORD A MERICA must be strong—strong to meet any attacks against her way of -*■ life from armed aggressors; strong to solve her domestic problems by peaceful democratic means. To the building of a stronger America the schools of the Nation are dedicated. By the patient processes of education they seek to develop in the youth of the land those essential knowledges and skills and that devotion to our democratic way of life which make for national strength and unity. The special contribution which the schools can make to national defense and the war effort is a matter of serious thought for teachers, principals, super¬ intendents, and others concerned with the operation of the Nation’s great educational enterprise. All are agreed that the public schools must be vital centers for the education of youth and adults facing a war-torn world. But how? Much material has already appeared to help answer this question and to define the relation of the school program to total national defense. Planning a constructive program of service in a critical situation is always difficult. Any emergency demands unbiased judgment, careful planning, and quick but not precipitate action. The U. S. Office of Education seeks to make helpful suggestions for action in the present emergency through a special series of pamphlets entitled “Education and National Defense.” We cherish the faith that all peoples are worthy of living under conditions which permit of their cultural growth. We believe that in a world at peace it is possible to plan such a use of the world’s resources that none need starve. We hold that mutual aid and generosity in the relations between peoples offer the best security. And with all this, we place our trust in science as the instrument with which to control and to direct nature’s abundant vitality, lest it become a source of distress and of strife. Of all these things examples will be found in the following pages. These are offered, not as an adequate treatment of the large and difficult questions upon which they touch, but as suggestions for discussion and clues to pertinent facts. No one knows, even approximtely, how many people will have been dislocated by the present war and its social aftermath; of what nation¬ ality and age groups these uprooted populations will be composed; what lands, capital resources, and technical means will be available to aid their resettlement—either in their former homes or away from them. All we can anticipate is the nature of some of the tasks that will then confront the world. That America will play a prominent part in this great job is certain. Our youth, aided by resourceful teachers, should begin now to find out what that job is and how it may best be approached. John W. Studebaker, U. S. Commissioner of Education. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/populationsadrifOOIask What Sets Populations Adrift? The Evidence Of History Alice Barlow, wife of a Pennsylvania factory worker, wrote to her mother in England on August 13, 1818: Dear Mother: I write to say we are all in good health, and hope this will find you so * * * Tell my brother John I think he would do well here; my husband can go out and catch a bucket of fish in a few minutes; and John brings as many apples as he can carry when he comes from school; also cherries, grapes, and peaches. We get as much bread as we can all eat in a day, for seven pence; althou’ it is now called dear. Dear mother, I wish you were all as well off as we now are. * * * 1 Mrs. Barlow had no idea that others than a few people in her home town would ever see this letter; and she certainly did not think of herself as a “historic personage.” But thousands of people in the young American Nation wrote letters like that; and together they made history. It was their short and not always correctly spelled letters more than anything else that filled the country with their kin or attracted others to come over here and so make life more profitable and more comfortable for all. Thirty-eight million immigrants, most of them white Europeans, have come here in the course of a century, to find an ampler livelihood. We do not know what became of Mrs. Barlow and her little family. Probably her husband became a foreman when, with the aid of additional immigrant labor, it was possible to expand the factory where he worked. Johnnie, who gathered apples on the way home from school, no doubt went into business like many others of the second generation, to feed, clothe, and house the growing community. His children maybe moved west, across the Ohio River, and took 1 Abbott, Edith, ed. Historical Aspects of the Immigration Problem, Select Documents. Chicago, Universiiy of Chicago Press, 1926, p. 37. part in building that industrial common¬ wealth which now reaches from coast to coast. There were many thousands of Mrs. Barlows. At first they wrote in English and German and Swedish and Dutch. Soon they wrote in a score of languages and dialects, and the postmaster had quite a time trying to make out to what countries some of these letters were addressed. The people of America, the common people, were making history. And they made history, too, when their letters were not so cheerful, when there had been a series of poor harvests or when the bags and bales of American merchandise piled up at the docks because there were no buyers. This happened after wars and after crop failures in Europe, which caused busi¬ ness depressions over there, so that fewer people could afford to buy such American exports as grains and skins and cotton and wool. Later on, when there were already flourishing manufactures all along the North Atlantic coast of the L^nited States, it might happen that because of poor business in other parts of the world the British would dump some of their own manufactures on the American market, laying idle the Ameri¬ can mills. Then again the Indian Wars stopped the westward flow of homesteaders, and immigrants who arrived from Europe found that there were no jobs for them in the cities and no farms for them to buy in their vicinity. It was in such a time that one of them wrote home: Such is the present state of things here, that neither farmers nor mechanics can succeed: the vast number of sheriffs’ sales are a sufficient proof of this. The country is inundated with the vast torrent of emigration, that has been flowing into it; * * * the new arriver must be content to penetrate far into the wilderness, and undergo fatigue, expense, and hardships, which he can badly estimate by his fireside. * * * 2 2 Abbott, Edith. Op. cit., p. 50. 1 Those who see history only in clashes of arms or in the rise and fall of great political leaders and of dynasties should ask them¬ selves what really produced that long series of European wars from the early middle ages to the Peace of Westphalia; what series of events was really responsible for the World War of 1914-18; and what circumstances have made possible the rise to power of fascist dictators. Everywhere, throughout history, we see populations on the move—not all at the same time and with the same zeal, but enough to change the character of civili¬ zations, to shift the balance of power from region to region and from continent to continent, to even up old inequalities and to create new ones. What is the cause of this seeming universal restlessness? When anyone tries to explain a social phenomenon of this sort with a biologically inherited “instinct,” beware! Except, pos¬ sibly, for a desire to roam in search of a mate (and that usually only on the part of the male), no people, however primitive, has ever been known to disdain for long the advantages of a settled home when these could be obtained. It is true, once the economy of a people and its customs have been geared to a roaming life, this may control its judgment in all things. A gypsy may well refuse the relative security of the farmer. But when we are told of an Indian tribe that it “has nomadism in its blood” or of Polynesians (the same has also been said of Malays) that they have a “wandering nature,” we may be sure that somewhere at some time some quite definite material need or force has made that particular society footloose, and that its members since that time have had no compelling reason for changing the habits acquired by their fore¬ fathers. Warren S. Thompson, well-known Ameri¬ can student of migration, observes: “Man sel¬ dom changes his place of abode except in the hope that he will improve his economic lot.” 3 3 Thompson, Warren S. Population Problems. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1930. P. 373. Donald R. Taft says: Man can hardly be called a migratory animal. His history shows a tendency to migrate only under specific conditions. When he was a hunter, he naturally left regions where game was scarce for regions where it was plentiful. When he was a herdsman, he was not necessarily nomadic. As an agriculturist, he became more settled and devel¬ oped almost an affection for the soil he tilled. Even when conditions have been hard, he has sometimes seemed almost as much rooted to the soil as the crops themselves . 4 The well-known anthropologist Edward Westermarck believed that nomadism, even where it seems instinctive, always is a reaction to particular conditions. The fun¬ damental reason for migrations, he says, not only in primitive stages but also on higher planes, lies in geographical conditions combined with the need for food. 5 The whole history of American immigra¬ tion, or rather of that Old-World emigration which has peopled not only North America but also many other regions, is proof of the contention that human beings are attached to their homes to the extent that these satisfy a normal desire for security. Young people stay around if there is work for them to do—especially if there is a chance that they may do a little better than their parents did. It is not because.of the neon lights of Main Street that youth leaves the farms; the cityward trend, common to most indus¬ trial countries, is sufficiently explained with the better chances to make a good living which the city affords—or is believed to afford even when this is no longer true. For example, less than one-tenth of the national income of the United States goes to the farms of the country, although these rear about a third of the Nation’s children. And, of course, the opportunities are very un¬ evenly distributed over the various sections of the country. The boy in South Carolina or Arkansas who stands by the roadside to 4 Taft, Donald R. Human Migration—A Study of International Movement. New York, Ronald Press Co., 1936. P. 40. s Westermarck, Edward. In Foreword, to Ragnar Numelin’s The Wandering Spirit, A Study of Human Migration. New York, Macmillan Co., 1937. 2 thumb a westward lift may not know it, but what sends him in that direction is the fact that the average per capita income in the Southeastern States is only about two-fifths of what it is in the Far West. Something like this also happens on an international scale. The chance which until recently California seemed to offer the land¬ less and the jobless of others of our States the United States as a whole not so long ago seemed to offer the landless and the jobless of a large part of Europe. The world’s population grew from probably less than half a billion in 1650 to more than 2 billion in 1940, that is, fourfold or fivefold in about 200 years; that of Europe from about 100 million to more than 500 million. During the nineteenth century, the population of the world increased by 85 percent, that of Europe by 115 percent. This in itself shows that Europe did not use the era of empire building to ship abroad the greater part of its additional population, although a large volume of emigration did coincide with a crowding up of the people who stayed at home. That period, and especially the second half of it, was the epoch of new inventions. Industries grew at an unprecedented rate. Agriculture also made great strides—notably through the introduction of new crops, as, for example, that of the potato. There were many new chances for the profitable use of labor, so that with higher wages there was a decline of the death rate and an increase in fertility. But people now depended for their livelihood on factors they could in no way control. The everyday life of workers and employers, of farmers and industrialists, of poor and rich more and more came to be influenced by fluctuations in world prices— both for the things they had to sell and those they had to buy. More people, without a farm or any bit of property to fall back upon, lived in uncertainty and near the edge of starvation. It is true, their fathers and grandfathers had suffered from the uncer¬ tainty of crops, but it rarely happened that several crop failures occurred in quick succession. In short, though life was more abundant with all the new mechanisms to lighten Adam’s ancient curse, it was far more precarious. Sometimes, just when the mills had closed for lack of orders, good reports happened to come from America or Australia about jobs to be had or land to be parceled out entirely free. It was then that young married couples without dependents, those who had already saved for such a chance, and those who had reasons of their own for wanting a change studied the advertisements of the “packet” lines. As American and colonial trade to the seaports of Europe had in¬ creased with the years, the lack of cargoes for the outward voyage had become a serious problem, and the language of the advertise¬ ments for outward-bound passengers had become correspondingly seductive, the fares correspondingly low. Are They Drawn or Are They Pushed ? There has been much debate over the question whether large human migrations are, in the main, the result of new oppor¬ tunities—such as the Americas afforded after their discovery; or whether they must be attributed, in the main, to misery expe¬ rienced in the countries from which these migrations originate. Some American his¬ tories almost disregard the second possi¬ bility. They picture the immigrant, from early days to this day, as an individual attracted by our wonderful material re¬ sources and by the right here accorded every man to make the most of his ability. Other writers, especially in Europe, have pictured the migrants as poor people who could hardly help themselves, whose one chance to survive and bring up a family was to “get away from it all”— the “all” being rising land prices; poor labor conditions; compulsory military serv- 425872°—42-2 3 ice; restraints imposed on freedom of movement within the country; famines brought about by bad harvests, war, or just mismanagement; persecution for re¬ ligious or political opinions. And, of course, all these causes of emigration are propulsive and not attractive. To use more homely language, they represent the whip and not the carrot. Now, neither side in this controversy is absolutely right, as more intensive recent historical studies have shown. There un¬ questionably was the lure—first of gold and later of seemingly inexhaustible soils. There also was the push from behind. The periods of maximum migration to this continent were those in which both pull and push were effective. After the great European famines in the 1840’s, Irishmen probably found it easy to decide that there was a good deal to be said for emigration; but the steady stream of Irish laborers and small farmers to America in the decades that followed would not have taken place but for the success of the Irish who had come earlier and who now had settled in large numbers in our seaboard cities. Italians at first came abroad, not to settle but to make a little money and then go back—just like whalers who spend a year at sea or trappers who go on long exploratory trips into the wilderness. But when times were bad at home, about 50 percent of these Italian emigrants stayed on and sent for their families. Of course, men do not always act only on the “main chance.” Any number of reasons may convince a young fellow that he had better clear out and try his luck elsewhere—perhaps a quarrel with his sweetheart, or failure to pass an examina¬ tion, or again just an urge to see something of the world while at the same time working for a living. The “Emigrant Guides”— sometimes romantic as well as informative pieces of literature—and the tall stories of returned travelers were not without influ¬ ence either. As the years went on, more and more people went overseas because some member of the family had gone before and had sent the passage money for others. Some people seem to think that in former days more persons emigrated to America for noble causes than has been the case more recently. But the proportion of religious enthusiasts and of political revolutionaries among the emigrants has always been exceedingly small. Most of those who leave home do so to “better them¬ selves.” 4 War and Migration When in any region the “good bottom lands” have dried out because after a succes¬ sion of warm winters the brooks and rivers have ceased to run, when a pest has devoured the grain or a fire destroyed the forest, many people may be deprived of their livelihood. Families and, at times, whole communities move on. In our own country, dust storms have in recent years uprooted many thou¬ sands of people. In one of the afflicted towns of South Dakota someone has read advertisements saying that fruit pickers are wanted in Oregon. Perhaps a scout is sent ahead to the Coast to find out whether conditions are really as represented. But this year the dust is worse than ever. There is nothing to eat and no relief in sight. “We can’t do worse out there in the West than we’ve been doin’ here the last few years,” a woman says to her neighbor. “My Bill is eight, and he’s never gone to school yet,” says the other, “ ’cause I can’t get him no shoes and clothes.” And so, impatiently, while there are still a few dollars left from Pa Brown’s job at the railroad shop last spring, they move off, these two families, not waiting for a report from Uncle Ben, who went to Oregon 2 months ago. A small trickle of humans flows from this town, a little larger one from that one, a whole rivulet from this county, a torrent from that. Soon the roads leading to the promised land are clogged with broken- down jalopies. State authorities complain; too many of these migrants go on relief as soon as they get there. A few camps are built. Federal departments intervene. And so gradually most of the people get settled somewhere, somehow, to make a new life for themselves and their children as best they can. After all, there is much good will in the United States; nobody wants to have these people starve. But not so if the contrast between want and plenty exists between nations. Striped poles are laid across the road at the border Armed sentries hold back those who have no visaed passports, giving them the right to pass over. The poor and unfortunate usually have no such right; for most coun¬ tries nowadays limit the privilege of admis¬ sion to those who have some better reason to show than merely their own want. There is no good will at all toward those who seek entrance. There is no Federal authority to see to it that human justice is preserved in the conflict between State rights. Most peoples, at most times, have re¬ garded as their own whatever lands they occupied and whatever natural resources they enjoyed. If once in a while, when extra hands are needed, aliens are invited to come in and settle down, that does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry—and every Tony, Ivan, and Jose-—has the right to follow after. During the greater part of our own American history the newcomer was received with smiles; there were not enough people to clear the woods, till the fields, bring to the light of day the hidden treasures of the earth, dig canals, build roads, man ships, and so forth. Those who had come first and their children could only profit from having more people to lease or buy their lands, to work for them in their mills, to buy their wheat or their cloth. But most other nations were less well off, are less well off today. They complain about lack of room. They will fight rather than share with others the gifts of nature in their realm. Whence Comes Man’s Inhumanity to Man? There is no absolute contrast between the nations that “have” and those that “have not.” Few are satisfied; few are entirely destitute. The stronger, if everything else is in their favor, still demand a “correction of the frontiers”—always in an outward direction—the better to be able to defend their possessions. Thus, competition be¬ tween groups, when conscious of themselves as nations, becomes a primary cause of war. Sometimes the claim of population pres¬ sure and the demand for more territory to relieve it are used to bolster up an aggressive imperialism. Several countries which in recent times have aroused the world’s sym¬ pathy with stories of hardship because their populations had outgrown their resources, are engaged in stimulating the further growth of their populations—yet without giving up the old claim. There is no quarrel here with the efforts made by any nation to increase its birth rate. Every nation has its place in the sun and the right within limits to determine its own destiny. But objection can rightly be made to the perpetration of any national program—including that of population in¬ crease—with the ultimate purpose of the deliberate conquest or destruction of other peoples. There is no justification of such a procedure even if one were to accept a competitive rather than a cooperative basis for the relations between peoples. Man’s inhumanity to man may proceed from the most reasonable or even the most laudable of motives, but it is none the less inhuman¬ ity when it exploits, conquers, or kills other men for purposes of aggrandizement or other selfishly nationalistic ends. The Case of Italy Italy has complained for some time that there is not enough room for her growing population. Yet, Signor Mussolini makes no secret of his wish to see it increase by one-half. With a declining birth rate— from 36.3 in 1880-82 to 22.9 in 1935-37— and large-scale emigration in the first two decades of the present century, there was a chance that the hard-pressed peasant people of Calabria and Sicily might be able to im¬ prove their lot. The export markets for Italy’s industries were expanding. The out¬ look was favorable for a national reform movement which would attempt to secure a better balance between the size of the country’s population and its resources. But the Fascists were buoyed up by a grandiose dream—nothing less than recon¬ struction of the ancient Roman Empire. All the peoples of the Mediterranean area were to be subjected, many others were to pay tribute, and the national flag was to wave over a vast colonial realm. A decline in the rate at which the people of Italy were reproducing themselves did not fit at all into the picture. Moreover, the party leaders had counted on the unquestioning loyalty of the millions of Italians who had emigrated, their children, and children’s children. And in this they were disappoint¬ ed, too. The new Roman Empire did not look quite as fascinating as these leaders had thought in comparison with the solid satisfactions offered by the great republics of the West. Yet, just about the time when the Fascists came to power, the United States—for reasons that had nothing to do with this—put an annual limit on the admis¬ sion of immigrants; and other nations either then or soon after also tightened their immigration laws. More and more the outlets for Italy’s “surplus population” were closed. And yet, more and more measures were introduced to raise the birth rate. They included grants and loans to newlyweds, assistance to married public officials and employees, a bachelor tax and exclusion of bachelors from certain public offices, birth premiums for certain classes of employees (increased in amount for each subsequent child), remission of taxes and preference in state employment for fathers of large families. Other steps taken to insure a larger population include prohibi¬ tion of birth control, heavy punishment for 6 the crime of abortion, regulations to impede the moving of farmers from the country to the cities, laws to make emigration more difficult, also some of the less expensive health campaigns to reduce the death rate, and legal barriers to interracial marriages. “Our territory will soon be saturated by our growing population,” Signor Mussolini said on one occasion; “we wish this and are proud of it, because life produces life.” How effective has this program been? None of the measures goes very far by itself. The bachelor tax, for example, is less than the cost of a dog license. But together they have for the time stopped the continuous decline of the birth rate. The Case of Germany When the German Empire began to make itself felt as a world power, in the eighties and nineties, its population increased. That increase was even greater in the first decade and a half of the present century. The rising plane of living, the growing export trade, the large standing army, and other causes made it possible during this period, with but brief business depressions, to absorb all the young people who graduated from school. Emigration decreased despite the larger numbers. Germany certainly was one of the most densely populated countries of Europe; but it did not feel the pressure seriously until the tightening of world trade after the war raised barriers against her exports, until the war-created bankruptcy and inflation destroyed the home market for the country’s products. The curious thing is that nobody can say for certain whether Germany was over- populated before the advent of the present regime, or not. There is no agreed way of measuring overpopulation. For example, while the government proclaimed the need for more land on which to settle families of German “race,” some of the employers of labor went right on importing workers from Belgium and Poland and, perhaps, other countries, too. Not only that, but one of the first things the National Socialists did when they came to power was to make it almost impossible for citizens of “Aryan” birth to leave the fatherland. And this they followed up with propaganda among emi¬ grant Germans to persuade them to return. Some tens of thousands did return. There was, in fact, much fear of a rapidly diminishing rate of reproduction. In 1933, the yearly number of births was not much more than one-half of what it had been at the turn of the century. The inclusion of Austria has somewhat lowered, that of the Sudetenland and other recent accessions probably raised, the net reproduction rate a little. Before the annexation of parts of Poland, it looked probable that the popula¬ tion of Greater Germany would stop growing about 1970 when it would have reached the number of about 80.5 million. Aiming at a population of 130 million Germans by 1990, the government of the Reich is no whit behind that of Italy in try¬ ing to have more children brought into the world. While doing most of the things which Italy is attempting in this direction— and with apparently about the same degree of success—Germany has, more or less by accident, hit on one device that is having effect. Soon after they came to power, the National Socialists introduced a system of loans to married couples if the wife had been employed for not less than 9 months during the preceding 2 years and now would stop working for wages. The maximum amount is 1,000 marks, payable in coupons for the purchase of furniture, hardware, or china- ware of the sort a young couple would buy to set up house. Repayment, without interest, is at the rate of 1 percent per month; but for each child born one-quarter of the debt is written off. Since many marriages had been postponed during the depression, so many people went to the registry bureaus now that the number 7 of assisted marriages was more than that of the unassisted ones. Or perhaps the young people did not at first believe that the state would go on playing Santa Claus and rushed to meet him. For in 1935 the number of grants made was much smaller, gradually to rise again in the following years. By 1937, with war preparations assuming a more and more feverish pace, unemployment had become a negligible problem, and now women were needed everywhere. So, in¬ stead of permitting the law to go out of operation in 1938, as had been the intention, it was now regarded as the state’s trump card in defeating the hesitation of young Germans to get married. In November 1937, the condition that the bride must stop working for wages after her marriage was dropped, and the number of marriage loans applied for and granted kept on growing. The Case of Japan Japan’s modern achievements, since the country’s political reconstruction in the 1860’s, have been motivated by the desire for military strength. At the start, when Japan emerged from its feudal age, there was justification enough for armaments that would keep at bay designing foreign powers. But now that nation’s leaders have declared that the Empire of the Sun Goddess is destined to unify all of Eastern Asia in a great world empire; that it cannot stop military preparations until that end has been attained. These leaders desire to encourage a high birth rate. They regard this as an element of national strength. And this view is in keeping with the Shinto faith which extols the concept of the Japanese Nation as one large family with the Emperor at its head; while Buddhism, extolling the sacredness of life, denounces any movement that threatens to interfere with nature’s fecundity. But nature sets limits to human ambition. The peasants and laborers of Japan can sacrifice only so much of their own comfort and well¬ being to do their patriotic duty to the state. Even an excellent public-health administra¬ tion cannot take the place of food. And so Japan still has one of the largest turnovers in human life. Its birth rate and its death rate are both higher than in any other civilized country. Japan’s rate of natural increase until quite recently was more than twice that of the United States and more than three times that of the United King¬ dom. Alalnutrition and diseases caused by poor housing carry off the human beings which national ambition has brought to life. From about 1908 on, the average size of families has decreased. Some time in 1939, the Japanese Government ceased publishing vital statistics. Still saying that it is fighting to gain living space for its unborn genera¬ tions, Japan now faces the possibility that before the close of the century it will reach a balance of births and deaths—that is, no population increase at all. Tanks and Oxcarts In the old days, great war leaders when they had conquered new lands usually settled some of their followers to protect these territories while the main army either went home or marched on to further con¬ quest. That is how the Balkan countries got their extraordinary mixture of peoples, languages, religious beliefs, customs, and arts. These are the living deposits of centuries of war and partial colonization. War produces extensive shifts in popula¬ tion today also. Indeed, warlike policies now make themselves felt earlier in popu¬ lation movements and last longer. Tanks are preceded, accompanied, and followed by carts, trucks, automobiles, trains, and steam¬ ships. Before National Socialism in Ger¬ many felt ready to fight the world, that is, from 1933 to 1939, 400,000 Germans emi¬ grated. Of these emigrants about 100,000 have come to the United States, and other 8 relatively large groups have found more or less permanent homes in England, Canada, China, South Africa, and especially Latin America. When the war broke out, in 1939, 160,000 were still in temporary homes, awaiting a chance to travel on to more dis¬ tant lands; most of these were in France, England, Switzerland, Elolland, and Bel¬ gium. Almost all of those who were still in the two last-named countries when the war assumed its active phase had no other choice than to flee to France. How many have since managed to get away from that country to one of the remaining democracies is not known. Since the summer of 1940, lack of transportation facilities more than any other cause has frozen the refugee situation as it then was; or rather, instead of the stream that was ready to pour from Europe to the New World and to the out¬ lying portions of the British Common¬ wealth, there has since been a mere trickle of exceptionally lucky or adventurous refu¬ gees to escape the dictator’s enlarged realm. On the other hand, the war also has brought new population to Germany. In addition to the voluntary return of German emigrants in the years just preceding the present war—some 20,000 from the United States among them—there has since been a “return” of much larger numbers, not quite so voluntary. These are the members of German-speaking minorities in various occupied countries. The total number of these “repatriated” persons is probably 400,000 but may be as high as half a million. The great majority of them are many generations removed from German citizen¬ ship; and it is largely through the cultural policies of Austria and Russia that they have retained their language. Of still another addition to Germany’s population during the Second World War it is as yet too early to speak with certainty. This is composed of populations of con¬ quered territories that have been incorpo¬ rated in the Reich. Two questions con¬ cerning them cannot now be answered: Whether, contrary to all assurances that the new Germany wishes to absorb only those who are racially Germans, these populations will permanently become subjects, and if so, whether citizens with full rights. Another matter on which there is no reliable informa¬ tion is the full extent to which subjects of annexed areas have been sent into Germany proper, there to perform compulsory labor services. One thing is certain. Death, mutilation, disease, postponed marriages, and general discouragement will increase the existing trend toward a sharp decline in the reproduc¬ tion rate of European populations. The present war differs from others in that much larger sections of the civilian populations will have been torn from their homes. There is a large crop of vagabonds and beggars after every war; but of even greater social consequence is the general discouragement that follows war when millions of young people who have served their country find themselves without work and without aim. The present war is likely to produce a great deal of migration that is neither purposeful nor socially advantageous. Economic opportunity, of course, will still be distributed unevenly. War favors the heavy industries and interferes most with the luxury trades. After the war, the heavy industries enter into world competition with a great deal of new equipment, new patents, trained skill. These may be assets if great public works of reconstruction at once absorb them; in that case the populations in the districts where these industries are located will be advantaged. But this has never happened to a large enough extent after past wars to prevent widespread un¬ employment and business depression. It is at such times that the stream of human migration is liable to flow back from the more densely populated districts into areas where a more primitive hand-to-mouth existence is still possible. 9 There is in all this threatening outlook one redeeming element. The world is better prepared than it was 20 years ago to deal practically and incisively with the social effects of war. Some of the problems named are already being studied by govern¬ ment agencies and by the International Labor Organization which is the joint in¬ strument of more than 50 governments, our own included. The “natural” and “in¬ evitable” effect of war on the growth and movement of populations can to a large degree be averted by proper planning now. War—Sower of More Wars Notice the swell in the wake of the steam¬ boat as it passes down the river. It does not exhaust itself in a single wave, but ripple follows ripple, long after the ship has dis¬ appeared around that bend. It is the same with war’s effect on the movement of popu¬ lation. We have seen that it uproots people. By emptying some regions of part of their population and filling others with an excess, by reducing the productivity of some regions and artificially increasing that of others, it magnifies inequalities in the economic opportunities of people. This, in turn, produces further migrations. The newly disadvantaged do not take their mis¬ fortunes philosophically, as do the inhabi¬ tants of naturally poor regions who have never known anything better. They press upon the more favored. Thus, new hatreds and envies spring up between peoples and classes, between national and racial groups. There arise fresh international rivalries and disputes. Trade competition becomes a continuation of war by different means. Migration from areas impoverished by war to more sparsely settled areas not yet fully developed, instead of being yet another link between peoples and a pledge of peace and friend¬ ship, assumes the aspect of a menace. Organized exchanges of population may play a large part in the post-war readjust¬ ments, even though statesmen may give up the vain attempt of crystallizing out of the East European melting pot a number of culturally homogeneous, politically inde¬ pendent nations. During a war, small culture groups, that have been content to live peacefully among their neighbors, attach new importance to their language, their history, their songs, the way they cut their hair, and the way they bake their bread. A sense of social distance enters into the intercourse between Stanislaus, the tailor, and his neighbor Gregory, the brick¬ layer, because one is a Pole and the other a Ukrainian. But the erection of a number of new independent states after the last war did not lessen the tension; it created a thousand new grievances among those who of necessity remained members of national minorities. To satisfy all the desires for national autonomy, the Balkan countries, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Baltic republics, and East Prussia would have had to be chopped up into crazy-quilts of self-governing patches of territory; or else new assignments of territory would have had to be made to each nationality without regard to history or economic need. Jews especially were the victims of war- stimulated national feeling. Some of them were among the most patriotic citizens of their respective countries. But even before the last war there had been a feeling of dis¬ quiet among Jews who saw their people discriminated against in so many countries. Especially those most oppressed by their governments listened with growing atten¬ tion to those who spoke of a Jewish national homeland. The British Government prom¬ ised such a homeland in the only place which all Jews recognize as the historic fountain of their culture, Palestine. Since then, Zionism has grown among Jews throughout the world with each advance in its concrete realization. But a new national fervor, based on race and religion, also seized the Arabs of the Near East and of Palestine 10 itself. A clash between the two movements was the result. With the present war, the rise of a new, common cause has dissipated it. Today the Jews and Arabs of the Near East seem nearer than are some of the cul¬ tural minorities of Europe to a solution of their differences in an honest effort to live together in peace and amity. Here, then, we have examples of the way in which maladjustments between popula¬ tions and resources, created by war, are liable to become sources of new frictions and of new mass migrations. Political readjustments alone cannot equate all the differences in economic opportunity which war creates. In Germany, anti-Semitism was revived as the convenient deflector of majority opinion from the real problems that beset the nation. In Poland, in Yugo¬ slavia, in Bulgaria, in Rumania, in Hun¬ gary, and even in the little that was left of old Austria, the habit acquired of blaming every ill on a neighbor of alien language, religion, or race created new cleavages and deepened old ones. But in each of these countries there are also large numbers of young people whose minds are unwarped, who are trying to bridge the old differences, and who place human ideals before those of any separate national group. Some of these idealists have been forced to emigrate, as some of their revolutionary forefathers did before. Our own country has received some of them as youthful political and religious refugees who have decided to throw in their lot with that of freedom-loving Americans. 425872°—42-3 11 Resettlement as an International Task Problems of Redistribution Offhand, the task of redistributing popu¬ lations which have outgrown their resources or which are pushed around in the battle of power politics does not seem too hard. If only governments could approach it as a matter of engineering—such as cutting off rocks that dangerously overhang a road and filling in a pond. It is fairly well known what areas there are on the earth’s surface that could do with more people if these were willing to go there and trained to get what good there is. It is also known where there are reservoirs of arable soil, virgin forest, minerals, and other things, which, though not perhaps of the first quality or easy to get at, could support people willing to work and live hard. There are many areas where a dam to hold back spring floods or a system of irrigation ditches or a new road or the growing of trees on bare hillsides—all long-term investments of labor —would make possible more intensive uses of land that now yields but little. There are still a few blanks in the available knowl¬ edge of the world’s material resources, but the major outlines of the picture are clear enough for an initial program of international population planning. Our geographers are well aware, however, that topography, climate, fertility of soil, minerals below the surface, water power, natural means of transportation (such as rivers), are only a few of the factors that must be considered in any practical pro¬ gram. Human nature also is important. That is, you cannot simply transplant a group of Lapps to Rhodesia when a pest among the reindeer has deprived them of their living; and you cannot well people the wide plains of Manchuria with refugees from Valencia. There always are a few individuals who, carried by an enthusiasm for prospecting, for selling bicycles, or for digging up dinosaur eggs, will live almost anywhere. But most people, before they move to a new place, want to feel sure that the climate will not be too trying, that they will not be liable to catch dangerous diseases, that they will be able to make a living, that they need not give up too many of their accustomed comforts, that they will be able to sell what they produce and buy what they need, that they will not be too lone¬ some—and that means not only that there will be company, but that at least some of it will be congenial, will speak their language or a language they can learn, share some of their tastes and interests, their sense of morals and good manners, and so forth. A reasonable policy of population redis¬ tribution takes into account the normal likes and dislikes of people. It is concerned with the public welfare and not with false symbols of national greatness. It is impossible with¬ out an international collaboration such as only the mutual confidence of self-governing peoples can insure. Each country and each region within a country may either have too much popula¬ tion or too little. But it is hard to say when either condition obtains. For example, in China the district at the mouth of the Yangtse, near the city of Shanghai, with 6,000 people to the square mile, obviously is overcrowded as long as it remains agri¬ cultural. So are many parts of south China from which millions of emigrants have gone forth for centuries to the countries of south¬ eastern Asia, to Australia, to North and Central America. But other parts of China are sparsely populated, and the country as a whole is not overcrowded. With modern methods of transportation, with large-scale irrigation schemes such as China had in working order in each of its more prosperous 12 ages, and with large capital investments in the production of power and other public works, China could support as large a popu¬ lation as it supports now, on a much higher plane of living. If all the necessary capital could be found to develop unused resources, a large part of Asiatic Russia, of northern Canada (also of our own Alaska), some parts of Central Africa and Manchuria, limited sections of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and other repub¬ lics of Latin America, could stand a some¬ what larger population. The case of Aus¬ tralia is more doubtful because much of the land now in use is rather poor and the rest is pretty arid if not downright impossible. But it is quite another question whether the “ifs” and the “whenevers” are not too numerous to make practicable any large addition of population in any of the areas named. Some Hypothet¬ ical Cases We may ask: Is any kind of planned redistribution of population possible on an international scale? Let us suppose that an international board on population strategy has been set up by some of the democracies, instructed to draw up a plan for the redis¬ tribution and resettlement of population wherever these seemed necessary to relieve suffering from overcrowding. What could such a board do? We shall here leave aside the political aspects of that question, except to say that presumably such a body would not have the power to compel people to leave a country or to live in a particular country if they would rather go to another. All it could plan for would be to make settlement pos¬ sible and attractive in one area rather than in another. It would have to rely on the normal self-interest of people, without com¬ pulsion, to move to available regions where the chances for themselves and their children looked most promising. Now, the whole thing is really quite involved. Problems of migration are in¬ timately related to problems in growth of population. If the population of a coun¬ try—say Sweden—shows signs of slowing up its reproduction and is liable soon to become stabilized or even to lose numbers, why make provision for emigrants from such a country? Clearly, farmer Nils Jahnson, his wife, and his three sturdy children would much rather stay where people talk their own language, where they can have spiced herring or fish pudding for supper, where they can sleigh in winter, and on Christmas day sing the good old hymns in their own little church. But as an innocent bystander during the war, Sweden may have lost trade; things may have been going badly for many people. At any rate, let us suppose Nils has lost his farm and can find no work. Is that any reason, he asks his neighbor, why he should go abroad to some “heathen land”? So he goes again to the employment office. “There’s a fellow here rounding up a gang to go lumbering in Kamchatka,” says the superintendent. “Want to go?” “No, why should I?” “Well, it’s this way: that inter¬ national committee on population redis¬ tribution says more labor is needed up there; and they want Swedes to go and settle there because we can stand the cold and because we have more farmers and lumbermen just now than we can find work for.” Nils leaves a message for the international com¬ mittee, telling them where they should go. And the official begins to wonder why the international committee if it is so eager to help people like Nils Jahnson does not do something to expand industry in Sweden and to find markets for Swedish products—a much more certain undertaking than this attempt to transplant Swedes to places where they would have to spend most of their time learning new ways. Or take the case of Mexico. There is not likely soon to occur either such stabilization of the population or such accumulation of 13 capital in this republic as to make possible a large rise in the plane of living of the Mexi¬ can workers. But this is the present govern¬ ment’s major aim. At the time of our busi¬ ness depression in the early thirties, that government did what it could to get its nationals who happened to be on our side of the border to return home. Between 1931 and 1936, more Mexicans left the United States than entered (in 1932, at the ratio of about three to one). From 1937 on, Mexican laborers have drifted back again across the border to our side, but not in alarming numbers. Now, it seems fairly obvious that, from an impartial international standpoint, large investments to increase the productivity of Mexican labor in Mexico will be more rewarding, in the long run, than the use of similar sums to settle more Mexi¬ can laborers in the United States. But international policies can neither neglect short-run economies nor the attitudes of prospective investors toward particular na¬ tions and governments. As regards the former, the amount of new capital needed to set more people to work may be expected to be less in a country that is already fairly well equipped with roads and railways, water supply, and health protection. It takes less capital to set a few thousand Mexican laborers to work on irrigated land in Arizona than to irrigate an area of similar size in Lower California—a Mexican prov¬ ince—with water from the Rio Grande or from one of our new reservoirs, though there has been talk of just that. And as for the views of private investors, they almost cer¬ tainly would prefer to have their money placed where they can watch it and where they can veto—either directly or through the power of their vote—any policy of development which to them may seem uncertain. Our examples show that any attempted international guidance of migration must pay attention to other things, too, without which there can be no large-scale resettle¬ ment—such things as the planning and financing of land developments, transporta¬ tion, public works, and marketing facilities. And since in the countries that desire to attract more residents, the banks are usually not bursting with unused capital, questions of credit—and with credit also the creditor’s desire to have something to say in manage¬ ment—assume high importance. International Control Before the present war, it was the fashion to discuss the inequalities in national posses¬ sions as though they involved mainly a question of colonies. Nations aspiring to the position of great powers struggled to bring under their control sources of as many as possible—if not all—of those materials which they needed for the conduct of their industries, and especially of those they might need in case of war. History has taught those willing to learn that this kind of struggle only makes war more certain. In¬ deed, in recent times it was often more a matter of national pride than of economic need. In the first place, even the great imperial powers and exceptionally rich countries, like our own, have remained dependent to some extent on materials produced under foreign flags. Second, the really important basic raw materials of the world, such as oil, coal, iron ore, copper, nitrates, and those which, though needed in smaller quantities, are also important, such as tin, lead, zinc, mercury, tungsten, are found in much larger amounts in independ¬ ent states than in the colonial possessions of big powers. And third, except in times of war, all these minerals can be bought by anyone able and willing to pay the world market price for them. The suggestion has been made that the only way to lessen international friction is to bring the basically necessary resources under joint international control, so that the oil, the minerals, the hardwoods, the fish in the 14 sea, and others of nature’s riches can be allotted according to need rather than the accident of possession. Access to raw ma¬ terials, in a world organized for peaceful cooperation, with such impartial control would be one of several objects of systematic planning. Connected with it would be agreements concerning the production of various basic commodities and, through guided migration, where necessary, alloca¬ tion of the needed labor supplies. But back of these various operations there would have to be also a more rational allocation of capital to different kinds of enterprise; this was the conclusion reached by a Conference of Experts on Migration for Settlement, held in the International Labor Office, Geneva, in March 1938. The need for international cooperation in this whole matter of population policy is generally agreed. Then, why has not some kind of joint control been attempted long ago? As a matter of fact, there have been a number of such controls, and some of them have worked quite well. But they did not go far enough or, in some cases, were broken up again by international rivalry. The very uncertainties in the political relations be¬ tween nations have made international economic collaboration difficult. This was exemplified only a few years ago in the com¬ paratively simple matter of providing asy¬ lum for refugees from political, religious, and racial persecution. No nation could do very much in the matter because those which really wanted more European residents did not have the necessary funds to invest in the clearing of land, the new roads, factories, schools, health centers, storage plants, and other things that would be needed—not to forget the maintenance of the settlers until they could become self-supporting. More¬ over, there was no reason to believe that taking care of refugees in this manner would really improve the total situation. The dictators would be only too happy to throw on the mercy of the world additional tens or hundreds of thousands of those of their subjects for whom they had no use but whose property would come in very handy. In short, before there can be joint inter¬ national solutions for common problems, there must be a joint purpose. But as long as every nation must keep itself in condition to ward off a sudden blow to its very exist¬ ence from one side or another, military preparedness comes first. In such a state of mutual suspicion, governments have to think of manpower and economic strength, no matter what the effect on other peoples may be—or even on the ultimate welfare of their own. They cannot afford to use all their natural resources to best advantage because they must always think of ways to strengthen their economic and military posi¬ tion in a never ceasing conflict of national ambitions. As a result, we find poverty in countries which could support in comfort much larger populations than they now have. Some¬ times, they are so preoccupied with the arts of war that they neglect those of peace. In order to secure foreign credit, they in¬ crease their export trade even when this means that labor costs must be held down to a point at which the people can no longer afford to eat the food grown on their own land or to wear the cloth woven on their own looms. If it were not for this excessive international rivalry, people with money would invest it wherever the chances of profit seemed best. And this, in many cases, would be precisely in those places that are rich in natural re¬ sources which can be brought into use only with better tools and more labor. All refugees of good health and normal intelli¬ gence could easily be set to work, not only for their own benefit but to add to the wealth of the world. There is no scarcity of world resources to meet every need. Over large areas, the soil is turned over with primitve wooden plows that barely scratch the surface. In 15 other areas, partially exhausted soils which now produce nothing could be restored by a judicious use of fertilizer and rotation of crops. Denuded mountains can be refor¬ ested. The water level of dry areas can be raised, and arid plains can be irrigated with the aid of water reservoirs. Fish can be restored to their natural habitat. Almost nowhere is technical knowledge fully applied to the conservation and increase of man’s precious heritage. It is the same with the world’s human resources. Almost every country today, in the scramble for a favorable position in world power, deplores the loss of ancient arts and skills, fails to promote those new ones that would add to plenty and to happi¬ ness. Invention is used to build war ma¬ chines, and even in the richest countries • many of the people live in slums. Only when the menace of war has finally been removed will it be possible to apply scientific knowledge to the adjustment between world population and world resources. The means of doing this is, primarily, world trade. Trade and Investment The great advance in world trade during the nineteenth century brought with it a mutual economic dependence among peo¬ ples which is obscured by the sharp political divisions which nationalism has created be¬ tween them. Being an outgrowth of those great social changes which invention and modern forms of production have brought about, nationalism has failed to adapt itself to this new economic interdependence of peoples. Some states, in attempts to make themselves economically self-sufficient, have stimulated an irrational use of the available land and capital. Large sections of the population were set to work on the produc¬ tion of commodities that could have been obtained more cheaply abroad. All states tried to sell as much as possible outside their borders and to buy as little as possible. This they called a “favorable balance of trade.” As a result, tariffs grew ever higher and trade quotas were established, until a point was reached at which foreign purchases became almost impossible for some nations because no other would accept in exchange the commodities they could offer in pay¬ ment. We are here concerned with these matters only to the extent to which they help to explain why the great increase in produc¬ tion, the world over, has not been of more benefit to mankind, why in the midst of wealth we see so many symptoms of seeming overpopulation. Our own government recog¬ nizes this contradiction and, until we our¬ selves were drawn into the war, tried to re¬ lieve the pressures and frictions between peoples by its efforts to set trade flowing again in a more normal fashion. Temporary Migration Seasonal and other temporary migration has long been used in some parts of the world to equalize the demand for and the supply of labor between regions and countries. Such temporary migrations, usually start¬ ing with neighboring countries as their goal and gradually extending in compass, have for many generations helped to support populations that had outgrown their home resources. Unfortunately, this labor migra¬ tion also has led to grave abuses, which have not as yet been entirely abolished. Labor¬ ers contracting their services for a number of years have been helpless when exposed to inhuman treatment in foreign lands; only rarely have the home governments been able to protect them. Such contract labor¬ ers often have been forced into the accept¬ ance of conditions so arduous as to shorten their lives, contribute little to the support of their families, and bring them into unfair competition with free labor. Being able to recruit labor in almost any part of the world where war or famine had left an 16 aftermath of helplessness, a contractor could use such labor to drive down wages and to facilitate enterprises which under normal conditions would not have been profitable. The worst abuses of this sort have now been eliminated, partly because large employers of labor have found that they do not pay in the long run, and partly through the agreements between govern¬ ments and employer groups brought about by the International Labor Organization. A large increase in the use of seasonal and other contract labor recruited in low-wage countries, even with considerable improve¬ ment and governmental regulation of the conditions of employment, obviously still offers a menace for workers accustomed to higher standards. Nevertheless, some ar¬ rangement for the introduction of foreign seasonal or temporary labor, carefully pro¬ tected against abuse, may be preferable to the admission of somewhat smaller numbers of workers with their families for permanent residence. There are aiso possibilities of the use of temporary international migra¬ tion entirely free from the objection named. Several of the settlement projects for refugees in Latin American countries are designed to use the greater efficiency of workers introduced from high-wage coun¬ tries to start enterprises in which, it is hoped, much larger numbers of indigenous workers, now occupying a very low rank, both as to productivity and as to standard of living, will eventually be absorbed. The same system obviously can be made effec¬ tive on a much larger scale with the tem¬ porary use of labor contingents from techni¬ cally more advanced countries. Indeed, the seasonal use of Italian labor in Argen¬ tina and Brazil seems to have had such a stimulating effect on agricultural develop¬ ments, to the benefit of native peasants. And more recently, Spanish refugees, skilled in a variety of trades and industries, have made possible the introduction of a number of new enterprises in Mexico, which could not have been manned with native Mexican labor alone. Refugee Settlement No one knows how many people are today in some temporary refuge with the hope of proceeding to a more permanent home. There is no agreement even as to the correct definition of the term refugee. We have read tales and seen pictures of those streams of poor people who, driven out of their homes by war, slowly moved along the country roads of Spain and Holland and Belgium and France, of Yugoslavia and Greece and Albania, of Rumania and Bulgaria, of Slovakia and Poland and Russia, of Finland and, indeed, all of Eastern Europe. Are these people refugees? In one sense, they certainly are; they are, or were, in need and have, or had, nowhere to go. But the difficulties of these people are not the same in every case. Some have already returned to their towns and villages. Others will eventually do so. In the mean¬ time, they have to be protected and cared for—if possible set to work on productive and remunerative labor. Yet others have seen their home towns burn behind them, have lost their all. These people may prefer not to return to the desolated sites of their former homes—especially not if they can settle down in some other part of their home¬ land where the future looks brighter. A few may have become so uprooted, so entirely alienated from the communities of which once they were part, that they wish to get far away from them, away even from the country they have always considered their own. These include the members of na¬ tional and religious minorities who remember how their government and their neighbors turned against them, not because of any fault of their own. They constitute the ranks of those refugees, more especially, in whom many American organizations and American governments have interested 17 themselves ever since the Nazis enacted the Nuremberg laws, sent prominent political adversaries to concentration camps, and made it impossible for the truth to be taught in the schools or preached from the pulpits. A few figures have been given (on pp. 8 and 9) of the rumored numbers of such persons. These estimates do not take into account the perhaps even larger numbers of those who, equally anxious to escape, have been unable to get across the borders. We cannot even guess how many of those who since 1933 have found temporary refuge in Holland, France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, or some other European country have suffered the same cruel discriminations from which they fled, because the country in which they found refuge has come under the u p rotec “ tion” of Germany or Italy. We do not know how many of those who are now languishing in concentration camps or have been forced into compulsory labor battalions will become refugees in the course of time. We only know that practically all the outer gates of Europe are now closed. Even where no law prohibits the departure of such persons and they have secured passports and visas, there are no boats on which they can travel. It has been estimated that Jews consti¬ tuted about three-fourths of the refugees in the earlier years of the Nazi regime, but that, as the sway of that regime extended more and more to all nonconformists with the new theology of unreason, the proportion of non-Jews in the total increased. The United States did not at first receive a sub¬ stantial number of these refugees. The total annual average of German quota immigrants in the 4 years 1933-36 was only 4,000, as compared with 21,000 in 1937-40. (The permissible combined immigration quota for Germany and Austria is 27,370.) No government felt in a position to offer its hospitality to any large number of European refugees. Indeed, the countries which desire to attract more population in order to develop unused lands or to intro¬ duce new skills usually are short of capital; they could have proceeded only very slowly even under better circumstances, except with the aid of foreign loans. While several governments were studying specific immedi¬ ate small settlement projects, no govern¬ ment felt itself called upon to initiate an international organization adequately financed to carry out settlement schemes corresponding in magnitude to the need. This failure was to a small extent made good by the heroic efforts of a number of private organizations, European and American, which collected funds and instituted efficient services for the guidance of refugees, their transportation and placement, and occasion¬ ally the financing of community settlement projects. Palestine, several of the Latin American republics, Canada, and the United States were favorite destinations for permanent settlement outside Europe, although possibly an equal number of refugees preferred to stay on that continent. Thousands arrived at ports, such as Shanghai and Manila, where it was very difficult for Europeans to make a living, and had to be resettled as soon as possible. In all these matters voluntary international cooperation func¬ tioned with a fair measure of success. Eventually, the great majority of refugees in all of the receiving countries found homes and occupations which at least insured their survival and often provided opportunities for the employment of their special talents. Like immigrants in earlier times, some of the refugees who arrived in this country did not get far beyond the Atlantic seaports; but a much larger number now have been placed in different parts of the L nited States. Most of them have become self-supporting. Some, because of their special knowledge, are rendering valuable services in the national defense effort. Similar has been the experience of the American sister republics that have offered sanctuary to refugees. In some of them, 18 local committees are energetically at work to insure as effective a placement of those newly arrived as possible. Some have been more successful in this than others. In several instances, the admission of refugees has been limited to the participants in particular settlement projects; and some of these projects, though small to start with, have good possibilities of later enlargement. Careful preliminary investigation, selection of suitable areas in the case of agricultural settlement schemes, technical aid rendered by governmental and private agencies, capi¬ tal provided by well-wishers, selection of the settlers themselves for suitable qualities and skills, and efficient business and social management have been found to be neces¬ sary conditions of success. With encouragement from the govern¬ ment, American citizens and organizations have assumed leading roles in the organiza¬ tion of relief and resettlement for refugees, not only in the United States but also in other American countries and in Palestine. They are thusgaining experience which can be applied on a larger scale, with the coopera¬ tion of the various governments concerned, when the lanes of travel will once more be free and ships can be reassigned from the transportation of troops to errands of peace. 19 Some Tasks for America To overcome the frictions and tensions that exist in a society distributed over so many different regions and with so many diverse origins as our own must be one of several objectives of a policy of population redistribution for this country. But the part which America might play in solving the larger problems of dislocation and malad¬ justment of people—and of whole peoples— in the world at large cannot be neglected either. In some respects our national problems and the international problems which we share are similar. In both cases, old traditions of sectional difference have to be overcome. In both cases, people have yet to learn that the interests they have in common are more important than those which divide them. Actual differences in economic opportunity, in conditions of life, in ways of thinking, are very great. But the one thing, apart from an exaggerated em¬ phasis on nationality, which makes inter¬ national joint efforts more difficult than those within the Nation is that we have yet to learn to think of the world geographically and physically as it actually is. We have yet to accustom ourselves to the fact, for example, that distances between nations, as reckoned in time of travel, are smaller today than a century ago were those between the States that composed this Nation. This greater nearness is not only physical; it is also cultural. An Australian farmer will share the concern of a Wyoming farmer over the price of lamb, and hear the price quotations in London or in Chicago at the same time. A Chinese high-school boy will understand the jokes of an American boy, because he will have had a very similar program of studies. An Argentine band will be equally popular in Stockholm and in Montreal. And the baseball fan in Tokyo is no less enthusiastic than the one in Jerusalem, though the game is originally an American one. Yet one must not underestimate the actual differences in ways of life and ways of making a living. We have overcome or narrowed down many of the same differences in our own country through the use of a common language, cheap and quick trans¬ portation and communication, our common institutions, and our public schools. Yet, as in the world at large, so in our own country, too, we still have the contrasts of advanced and backward cultures, of modern industry and traditional homecraft produc¬ tion, of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, of progressivism and “what was good enough for my grandfather is good enough for me.” We may as well start by learning how to deal with these contrasts in our own country when they contribute to the uprooting of people, migration, and a distribution of population which is economically inefficient and socially disturbing. For example, it costs less to live and bring up children in Puerto Rico than in the State of New York. But life is not, for that reason, easier in that territory. On the contrary, many thousands of Puerto Ricans have in recent years come to New York and added to its load of poor relief. At home, extreme poverty was their lot. In New York, at least the more lucky ones could make a living. The problem is essentially the same when we think of the relations between rural and urban continental United States. Merely to leave people free to drift where they think their chances are a little better does not improve the situation as a whole. The place of those who have left the village—if there is a tradition of large families, as is usually the case—will be taken by others; perhaps a few more of the babies will survive than would otherwise have been possible. In the big city there will be that many more competing for jobs. Migration may be a great help, as it is during the pres¬ ent national defense emergency, to even 20 out the demand for labor and its supply; but unless purposefully guided, it may, at other times, be no help at all. It may actually aggravate existing problems. The principal population problem for the United States just now is that of making the most effective possible use of the exist¬ ing manpower for the national defense. In a totalitarian country this would be a much simpler affair. People there are the tools of the state, to be used for its sake. The Nazi government of Germany does not hesitate to move millions of citizens as well as war prisoners and subjects of conquered countries around, like so many men on a gigantic chessboard, with a sole view to strategy. In a democracy the task is more complicated. We cannot disregard the wel¬ fare of individuals even in the midst of a national crisis. We have to see to it that those who are recruited for war industries as well as those who enter the armed forces will be better fitted by their experience to meet their everyday problems in the years to come. The Part of Education So, in this shifting about of people to make the most of the available manpower, much attention is being paid to training; and while training for the jobs immediately to be done is paramount, the future pros¬ pects cannot be lost sight of. In 1940, the U. S. Office of Education began an emer¬ gency national defense training program which is being carried on today in more than eight hundred cities with vocational trade and industrial schools. We are here concerned with some of the social byproducts of this program. The most important of these is that men who have been unemployed for a long time are given the chance to re¬ fresh their knowledge, to improve their skills, and to get back into the habit of regular work. Another is that thousands of youths who have had very little schooling are given the opportunity to learn the handling of tools and machines so as to improve their chances later in life, even though most of them will perhaps never enter any of the really skilled trades. One branch of the program deals with vocational training in rural areas whence, as we have seen, because such opportunities have been lacking, young people so often drifted away, some to become roamers and ne’er-do-wells. In the past, too large a proportion of the foreign-born have stayed in or near the port cities, even when they had been peasants in their own country. Their experience and their skill were not utilized. In the same way, we have a preventable loss of talents among American youth. Often the oppor¬ tunity for which a boy is looking does not lie in his home town or even in his home State. But he does not know how to go about finding out where his special enthusi¬ asm can be put to use. Planning for popu¬ lation redistribution, therefore, certainly includes setting up far better machinery than we now have for bringing jobs and job¬ seekers together. This involves applying in normal times the lessons learned in this period of national emergency about the in¬ adequacies of our training opportunities. Our schools can help to make permanent the gains that have resulted from the special training facilities created of late by seeing to it that the whole level of educational attainment is raised. In this matter, we are further ahead than we were during the last war. A much larger proportion of the Nation’s youth passes through high school. There have been notable gains in physical education and in the teaching of such sub¬ jects as home economics and practical arts. Not quite as great, perhaps, are the gains that have been made in teaching the social sciences, though today a much larger pro¬ portion of the American people than was formerly the case understand what makes the wheels go ’round, what are the causes of their common problems, and in what 21 direction solutions through common effort might be found. By further emphasis on such subjects as these, many of the problems incident to the emergency defense program can be antici¬ pated and prevented. It is largely lack of understanding and of preparation which in the past have made the period of readjust¬ ment following a war, even a victorious war, so dismal, so fraught with human misery. If the schools of America understand their present task and do it well, we shall face that period alert to new opportunities and prepared to take advantage of them. A young person whose education has made him adaptable to new conditions and new experiences will more easily make himself at home with those whose customs and ways of living are different from his own. He will not only be tolerant of people who in language, ideas, or appearance differ from those he has known, but he will be eager to understand the causes of their difference. Having learned to work with others in making his little corner of the world a better place to live in, he will have little fear of insecurity. Thus the inevitable increase in the disruption of families which war brings with it, the growth of new indus¬ trial communities, and the mixture of human ingredients from north and south and east and west will—but only with such forward steps in social education—help to integrate American society. We shall have become more united. There is another educational problem involved here. Many of the things people have learned at great cost and effort are of no use to them in a new environment. Especially great is this loss when the migrant has not only to change over to a new occu¬ pation and new mode of living but when he finds such talents as he has unappreciated and his comradeship rejected merely because of his race or nationality. Often, because his command of the English language is defective, the foreign-born finds himself regarded as “dumb” and assigned to jobs far below his ability. His customs and habits are ridiculed. Even in a com¬ munity composed of many national and racial elements, the newcomer often has a difficult time. He is judged not as an indi¬ vidual but as a representative of a particular group—a Heinie, a Jew, a Bohunk, or a Dago. He is despised if he is thought slow in catching on, suspected if he learns the ropes too quickly. Our American school system can do much to eliminate such prejudice from our national life—by no means an easy task. Even if we were to live up entirely to our profession of democ¬ racy, the cultural losses suffered by the immigrant would still be great. We can help to minimize them at least to the extent of making it easier for the foreign-born among us to adjust themselves to the con¬ ditions confronting them to see something of the finer side of American life, to become partners with the rest of us in building up a higher civilization. Planning for such partnership and for the greater productive efficiency of the Nation means that we must keep up with changing ideas of what constitutes a life worth living. These differ from generation to generation, as well as from region to region. For instance, if you link a remote village with a good road to the nearest city so that people can go there for their Satur¬ day shopping, if you drop on that village from the sky the latest newspapers, periodi¬ cals, and motion picture films, if you send its boys and girls to a consolidated school where they are taught by college-trained teachers, if the villagers have the chance of hearing the best music over the air and can follow the debates of our politicians without leaving their chairs—well, you can hardly expect these people to stay in the straw- chewing stage of American culture. Know¬ ing of the good things of life, they want them. They wish to retain some of their old arts and recreations and local tradi- 22 tions—the more so since these now receive national recognition as real contributions to American culture—but they also want up-to-date household conveniences, reason¬ ably fashionable clothes and furnishings, good books, vacation trips, a visiting nurse service, dentistry, permanent waves, and all the other things that belong to the “American standard of living.” The numeri¬ cal ratio of population to the natural resources in that village and in that section of the United States will have to be such as to bring these things at least within the * grasp of the more thrifty and industrious of the village people. The foreign-born who come to our shores are in a similar position. Through adult education programs and other avenues of service the schools can contribute much to help them to live hap¬ pily in the land of adoption, to use its re¬ sources wisely, and to take on its standards of living as they find their places in the new world. Considering the Human Quality In our country, as all over the world, not the most intelligent and most successful of the people but the least advanced groups reproduce their numbers the fastest. And as these are the poorest, they are not likely to be the healthiest and most robust either. In the United States, the picture of differ¬ ential fertility—some ethnic groups growing faster than others—is complicated by our great diversity in racial and national origins. In countries where class differences remain more or less constant, it is not so difficult to consider one physical type as superior and another as inferior: it all depends on whether you accept as an ideal type the country squire, the prize fighter, or the scholar. But, in this world of changing circumstances, who can say what physical types will be best fitted for tomorrow’s occupations and for tomorrow’s society? As a matter of fact, the most rapid decline in fertility among us is not, as we are some¬ times told, that of the intellectual aristo¬ crats whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower but that of foreign-born whites; and the net reproduction rate of Negroes is not very different from that of whites. So, the fear that America may be reproducing from “inferior” rather than from its “best” stock does not rest on racial snobbery. It rests, rather, on the fact that there are more children born into homes which for various social and economic reasons cannot give them the best care than there are born into homes which can. Now, very much the same kind of differ¬ ential fertility exists between nations, and with much the same results. That is of importance to us because any additions to our population through immigration could in the future come only from the poorer and technically less advanced countries, not from the countries that have given us the great majority of our present white population. The nations that are best equipped to give their young people healthy bodies and well- trained minds are least likely to contribute actively to the world’s future population. We have been brought up to believe, with Jefferson, that all men are born equal, but it makes a good deal of difference whether they are born into an adobe cottage, a slum tenement, a cave, a bamboo hut, or a modern bungalow. There are some who argue that if the nations and the groups within nations that are most advanced in civilization permit themselves to be outbred by those least advanced, there must be something wrong with our urban and industrial civilization, and we had better return to nature or, as they call it, “the soil.” There are others who argue that, since the offspring of the more advanced will probably intermarry with that of the less advanced, the only safe way to improve the race is to bring every¬ body as quickly as we can up to the highest 23 level of physical and mental efficiency of which he is biologically capable. If low standards of living make for a high repro¬ duction rate but for poor human specimens, they say, then surely we should raise those standards, so as to get a lower reproduction rate and better specimens. But people live in slums because they are inferior, says the first group. All right, says the second, then let us make life a little more worth living for them, so that they will get out of the slum class, have fewer children, and give these a better chance. And at the same time, they say, we might do something to make it easier for those who already do well by their children to have more of them. Our American standard of living can be protected only by spreading the advantages we enjoy both among the foreign-born living in the United States and to other lands and peoples. If we are menaced by the continua¬ tion of lower standards in other parts of the world, we must try with every means at our disposal to help in raising them. In most cases this is a task which implies, above all, help given—economically and politically— in freeing peoples from yokes which foreign conquest have imposed upon them. In other cases, it is a matter of collaboration with other great powers in improving methods of colonial administration. It has been pointed out by some authorities that many of the peoples whose low planes of living contribute to the menace of unfair competition in world production have high and ancient cultures; that they are back¬ ward because lack of capital or oppression by a ruling class has deprived them of the chance to possess the means and learn the techniques of modern production; and that when given that chance, they show themselves capable of reaching high levels of competence. It is to the common interest of all mankind that this chance be afforded, through inter¬ national collaboration, to ever-growing numbers. Immigration Policies The American immigration policy has shown itself adaptable to changing circum¬ stances. It acts—at least in theory—as a sort of regulator between our national popu¬ lation needs and the human resources of the world. In the present emergency, the national interest demands that there be as little immigration as possible—first, because work has yet to be found for some of the millions of wage earners who were dis¬ placed by the recent economic depression, and second, because in the exacting task of bringing the Nation’s military and industrial strength to the highest point of effectiveness, there is no room for large additional num¬ bers of aliens whose adhesion to American ideals may be in doubt. But the time may return when industry will find itself unable, with the available manpower, to produce all the Nation demands of it. And at that time questions may again be to the fore, not of lowering existing legal bars, but of attracting larger numbers of those who already are eligible to admission. Seasonal migration has played—and in all likelihood will again play—an important part in evening out the discrepancies in demand and supply of labor between European countries. In the Western Hemi¬ sphere, such a system also has possibilities as yet unrealized. There is reason to believe that Mexican immigration to the United States, which has been greatly reduced by the depression and by the Mexican Govern¬ ment’s policy of splitting large estates into small homesteads, will also, if it should be re¬ sumed again on a larger scale, take on more and more the form of a seasonal movement. International contacts of this sort, like those between businessmen, teachers, and stu¬ dents, who travel with temporary visas, may help in bringing about that greater continental solidarity which is now a major American policy. 24 The introduction of a system of seasonal migration, with annual quotas kept down to actual labor requirements, has been suggest¬ ed also as a suitable substitution for the pres¬ ent unrestricted admission to continental United States of both white and colored mi¬ grants from the country’s outlying parts. To make temporary transplantations of workers contributive to better mutual under¬ standing, efforts are needed to protect such workers against exploitation and to protect American workers against the use of such migrant labor to lower wage rates. Already, the International Labor Organization, of which all the American republics are mem¬ bers, has drawn up model regulations with these aims in view. To continue its adaptation of the prin¬ ciples inherent in our American immigration law to actual and impending changes in world conditions may be regarded, then, as yet another contribution which the United States can make to the solution of the larger population problems which, unattended to. must continue to endanger the peace of the world. & 25 Conclusion Our brief survey of the world’s population problem and of American policy in relation to it invites a few generalizations. The first is the need so often emphasized by Secretary of State Cordell Hull: The need for greater fluidity in the economic relations between nations. It means, above all, a removal of those obstacles which fears and jealousies between nations have laid in the way of a smoothly flowing trade. It also means greater mobility of credit and greater mo¬ bility of people. In the past, international migration has been visualized almost entirely as a brief interlude between two static conditions: Residence, first, in the home country and, then, in an adopted country. Transporta¬ tion was difficult, sometimes dangerous, and always costly. Today, a Georgia man, hearing of a good job in his line of work in Oregon, can afford to take it on the assump¬ tion that if it should prove unsatisfactory he can get back to his home town little the worse off. Similarly, a greater mobility of population between nations will help to break down needless barriers to opportunity. And this mobility, with modern means of transportation, can be so controlled as not to lead to permanent changes of residence and citizenship except where the receiving country desires to add to its permanent population. It can become the means by which many peoples may jointly make a great contribution to human welfare. We may visualize a sort of international labor corps with an ever-changing personnel, helping out wherever additional manpower may be needed for some urgent task, an army of peaceful reconstruction. Many of the evils that result from a faulty distribution of population, both within a country and between countries, could be remedied if it were easier for people to follow employment opportunities without having to give up their accustomed way of life. Greater tolerance for cultural differ¬ ences must play a part in this. Experience has shown that in two or three generations people naturally find a balance between their cultural heritage and the demands for change made upon them by a new environment. To bring about such tolerance and a friendly mutual appreciation between those of differ¬ ent backgrounds and traditions is an im¬ portant task for our schools and those of other countries. Without in any way lessening loyalty to the established ways of life, a better understanding for the historic and geographical causes of national and regional differences will greatly aid in smoothing that international collaboration for which the increased interdependence of peoples calls. But there are other difficulties—difficul¬ ties caused by the failure of world society to recognize as binding the laws that govern the peaceful relations between states. An orderly conduct of our everyday affairs would be unthinkable if national, State, and local governments felt free at any moment, and without legislative processes of any sort, to abrogate those laws on which the citizen depends for his security. Economic and social relations between men and groups of men have become too complicated to permit of anarchy, the law of might. So also in international life, any state that does not honor agreements voluntarily entered upon but arrogates to itself the right of setting up a “new order”—whether in the world at large or in a particular part of the world—throws out of gear all the delicate mechanism by which modern men must regulate their affairs. Before other policies, designed to relieve pressure points in world population, can become effective, the roads and seaways of the world must be made safe, and law must be re-enthroned. 26 This basic need suggests a further field of concentrated educational effort. Inter¬ national amity does not automatically arise from treaties and other formal political agreements. Like good citizenship within the state, it is the fruit of active collabora¬ tion of people in common tasks. And those tasks are quite concrete. We have in these pages reviewed the major problems which we face in common with other nations in the adjustment between population and resources. Some of these problems enter into the immediate task of national defense; others take on a practical significance more especially with plans for post-war reconstruction. But the solutions, whatever they may be, turn upon a fuller and more widespread understanding of the social forces that produce so much needless waste and misery. We have entered into an engagement with other nations to make an end to hunger and insecurity, so far as this is humanly possible. To end the distress of large masses of people torn from their homes and drifting in the quagmire of uncertainty is part of that task. What is involved in it may well be explored this coming year by community leaders, teachers, and students throughout the United States. 27 Some Topics for Discussion Topics are suggested below as examples of those which may be made the basis for discussions in school or community groups. They represent some of the most important factors to be considered in the total problem of population movements. 1. The relative place of economic need in influencing the movements of individ¬ uals; of families; of tribes; of whole sections of a population. What other causes contribute to such movements? 2. The opportunities and the responsibilities offered by living in the United States: How they should both be met by those migrating from abroad. 3. War-produced shifts of population: Are they ever justifiable? 4. The waste of human resources and of human happiness caused by war-pro¬ duced migrations. 5. The significance of the statement: “War is a producer of war.” Is it uniformly true? 6. The present immigration law of the United States: How it operates and with what results. Is there any need for revision ? 7. The program of the International Labor Organization: What it is and what it has done to safeguard labor standards and to protect migrants from exploita¬ tion. 8. The danger of permitting prejudices against race, nationality, or creed to influence placement in employment. 9. The need of international collaboration in permanently resettling refugee mi¬ grants . 10. Adjustments necessitated by moving to a new community; to a new country: How can they be made with the least difficulty? 11. The contributions of the foreign-born to American culture. 12. What the American schools can do to eliminate prejudices that are detri¬ mental to national unity. 13. The responsibility of the home in teach¬ ing tolerance and appreciation of social and national groups other than its own. 14. What any country can do to help raise living standards in another country in which conditions are poor. 15. The relation of free trade and of trade barriers to the whole problem of migration. & 28 Selected References Abbott, Edith, ed ., Historical aspects of the immigration problem. Select Docu¬ ments. Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press, 1926. 881 p. This volume, rich in human interest, is drawn upon for the examples of immigrants’ home com¬ munications cited in this pamphlet. Anderson, Nels. Men on the move. Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press, 1940. 357 p. An illustrated study of what makes young people leave home and what befalls them when they “bum” their way across America. Bowman, Isaiah, ed. Limits of land settle¬ ment. New York, N. Y., Council on Foreign Relations, 1937. 380 p. A description of opportunities for population settlement in different parts of the world. To those who wish to go more deeply into that sub¬ ject may also be recommended Charles C. Colby, ed., Geographic Aspects of International Relations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1938. Chase, Stuart. What the census means. New York, N. Y., Public Affairs Com¬ mittee, 1941. Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 56. 30 p. A simple and well-written introduction to the methods and the early findings of the United States population census of 1940. Fairchild, Henry Pratt. People—the quantity and quality of population. New York, N. Y., Henry Holt & Co., 1939. 315 p. A plea for consideration of the qualitative aspects of American population problems. Hansen, Marcus Lee. The Atlantic mi¬ gration, 1607-1870. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1940. 391 p. A detailed and vivid account of European emigration before the Civil War, its causes, character, and consequences. The same author’s The Immigrant in American History (Cambridge, 1940) shows the reverse of the picture, the recep¬ tion of the immigrants in the United States, but is less detailed in its documentation. Kuczynski, R. R. Living space and popu¬ lation problems. New York, N. Y., Farrar & Rinehart, 1939. 32 p. An informing and stimulating pamphlet for those who think they have no time to read books. Population Index. Quarterly organ of the Population Association of America. Princeton, N. J., Princeton School of Public Affairs. A source of current information from all parts of the world, with articles by leading authorities on war-created movements and problems of popu¬ lation. Next in importance as a periodical source of up-to-date material is the International Labor Review, monthly organ of the International Labor Organization, 734 Jackson Place, Wash¬ ington, D. C. Problems of a changing population. Wash¬ ington, D. C., National Resources Committee, 1938. 306 p. A comprehensive survey of the population trend in the United States, with special reference to the regional distribution of population and of economic opportunity, with excellent charts and maps. A particularly fine set of maps will be found also in the Committee’s Land Available for Agriculture through Reclamation, 1936. Saenger, Gerhard. Today’s refugees— Tomorrow’s citizens. New York, N. Y., Harper & Bros., 1941. 286 p. An account of the problems of adjustment faced by refugee immigrants in the United States. For a more inclusive treatment of recent refugee movements and problems, see Francis J. Brown, ed., Refugees, whole number 203 of Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science, 1939, and a special appendix on that subject to Survey Graphic for November 1940. Smith, J. Russell, and Phillips, M. O. North America. New York, N. Y., Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1940. 1008 p. Indispensable background information for any teacher of social problems and developments in the United States. A wall map which comes with this volume can be had separately for 25 cents. 29 Taft, Donald R. Human migration—a study of international movement. New York, N. Y., Ronald Press Co., 1936. 590 p. The only available comprehensive textbook on the subject. Thompson, Warren S. Population prob¬ lems. New York, N. Y., McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1939. 115 p. A general textbook on various problems of population movement and settlement. Chapter XXII (20 pages) is devoted to the topic of mi¬ gration. Though very different in content and character, the following volumes—all drawn upon in the preparation of the present pamphlet—are recommended to teachers of social science who desire to pursue to their sources some of the suggestions con¬ tained in its pages and who require more information than space permits to give here. Carr-Saunders, A. M. World population— Past growth and present trends. New York, N. Y., Oxford University Press, 1936. 336 p. Dell, Burnham North, and Luthringer, George Francis. Population resources and trade. Boston, Mass., Little, Brown & Co., 1938. 291 p. Dublin, Louis I., ed. Population prob¬ lems in the United States and Canada. Boston, Mass., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1926. 318 p. Glass, D. V. The struggle for population. New York, N. Y., Oxford University Press, 1936. 148 p. Lorimer, Frank, and Osborn, Frederick. Dynamics of population. New York, N. Y., Macmillan Co., 1934. 461 p. Lorimer, Frank; Winston, Ellen; and Kiser, Louise M. Foundations of American population policy. New York, N. Y., Harper & Bros., 1940. 178 p. Myrdal, Gunnar. Population—a prob¬ lem for democracy. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1940. 237 p. Thompson, Warren S., and Whelpton, P. K. Population Trends in the United States. New York, N. Y., McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1933. 415 p. Wright, Fergus Chalmers. Population and peace. New York, N. Y., Colum¬ bia University Press, 1939. 373 p. (International Studies Conference, 1938-39, Peaceful Change , Vol. II.) 30 Education and National Defense SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS The U. S. Office of Education is publishing a new series of some 20 pamphlets under the general title, “Education and National Defense.” The purpose of this series is to assist educational institutions and organizations in making the greatest possible contributions toward the promotion of under¬ standing and the encouragement of effective citizenship in our democracy. These publications contain specific suggestions for the adap¬ tation of the curriculum to new educational needs. They present materials suitable for various educational levels. A few of the titles of publications included in this series are: Our Country's Call to Service, What the Schools Can Do, Home Nursing Courses in High Schools, Hemisphere Solidarity, How Libraries May Serve, Sources of Information on National Defense, Democracy in the Summer Camp, Vocational Rehabilitation and National Defense, and What Democracy Means. As the various pamphlets in this series on education and national defense become available, copies may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Announcement of their avail¬ ability and price will be made from time to time through news releases and through Education for Victory, the official biweekly periodical of the U. S. Office of Education. FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS CONTINENT A NEW NATION CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY AND DEDICA¬ TED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL- NOW WE ARE ENGAGED IN A GREAT CIVIL WAR TESTING WHETHER THAT NATION OR ANY NATION SO CON¬ CEIVED AND SO DEDICATED CAN LONG ENDURE • WE ARE MET ON A GREAT BATTLEFIELD OF THAT WAR-WE HAVE COME TO DEDICATE A PORTION OF THAT FIELD AS A FINAL RESTING PLACE FOR THOSE WHO HERE GAVE THEIR LIVES THAT THAT NATION : ■ ----- ! MIGHT LIVE • IT IS ALTOGETHER FIT~ 1 TING AND PROPER THAT WE SHOULD S DO THIS • BUT IN A LARGER SENSE i WE CAN NOT DEDICATE- WE CAN NOT CONSECRATE-WE CAN NOT HALLOW- f THIS GROUND-THE BRAVE MEN LIV- 1 1NG AND DEAD WHO STRUGGLED HERE HAVE CONSECRATED IT FAR ABOVE OUR POOR POWER TO ADD OR DETRACT THE WORLD WILL LITTLE NOTE NOR LONG REMEMBER WHAT WE SAY HERE BUT IT CAN NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID HERE • IT IS FOR US THE LIVING RATHER TO BE DEDICATED HERE TO THE UNFINISHED WORK WHICH THEY WHO FOUGHT HERE HAVE THUS FAR SO NOBLY ADVANCED • IT IS RATHER FOR US TO BE HERE-DEDICATED TO THE GREAT TASK REMAINING BEFORE US- THAT FROM THESE HONORED DEAD WE TAKE INCREASED DEVOTION TO THAT CAUSE FOR WHICH THEY GAVE THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION - THAT WE HERE HIGHLY RESOLVE THAT THESE DEAD SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN-THAT THIS NATION UNDER GOD SHALL HAVE A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM- AND THAT GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH • - ■* " - .itr urn i