Beyond Orientalism

                                                                                                       

The image of David Crockett Graham that emerges from the context of the West China Border Research Society has several unsavory characteristics.  From my account thus far, one could summarize Graham as an agent of imperialism, a missionary who used science to improve his craft of conversion, an Orientalist who turned the people of West China into objects with his measuring tools, and even an incorrigible grave robber.  This would, of course, be an extreme and unfair representation.  Highlighting only the Orientalist characteristics of an institution in which Graham participated, however actively, reveals a limited picture of the individual himself.  Having seen that D.C. Graham operated within a unique Orientalist discourse, we can now look more squarely at Graham's individual work, both published and private, and see points where he diverged from a standard conception of Orientalism.  David Crockett Graham was not a "textbook" Orientalist, but an individual person existing in a turbulent time, shaped by not one but a variety of cultural forces.

 

As much as Graham may have objectified the local population through his research, he also held a rather benign and humanistic view of the people of West China.  He never denied them the status of full humanity in his writings.  "The Chinese are very human," Graham wrote, as if to stress their humanness in the face of Orientalist assumptions of essential inferiority.[1]  One could argue that such assertions of egalitarianism were simply by-products of missionary culture, which often championed (if only rhetorically) the humanness of foreign peoples.  "Missionaries, unlike colonial politicians and economists, tend to proclaim the equal humanity of Africans and Europeans, at least in God's eyes and in terms of the hereafter," T.O. Beidelman wrote in his study of East African missions.  "Yet this does not ensure any lack of ethnocentrism or color bar in missionary affairs."[2]  W.R. Morse explained this distinction in the following way: "We may theoretically love a tribesman, but unwashed clothes that have been worn for decades with their generations of lice, fleas and bedbugs are neither attractive nor beautiful."[3]  The Christian impulse to view Orientals as equals was largely abstract, as Western values prevailed and led many missionaries to deem foreign peoples primitive and backward in reality.  In human terms, Orientals were equivalent to Europeans, but in cultural terms they lagged far behind.

 

Certainly, the ideals of universalism and equality in Christian theology had to have played a part in shaping Graham's worldview, but his egalitarian sense seems to have gone beyond a view that the Chinese were only equal "in God's eyes."  Graham tended to conceptualize them as sharing universal traits with all people. "Like human brings throughout the world, [the Chinese] desire and enjoy play, amusement, and recreation," he wrote in Folk Religion of Southwest China, a summative work published posthumously in 1961.[4]  Indeed, he occasionally even ascribed greater qualities to the people of China than to Westerners.  For example, in a brief discussion of Chinese religious history, Graham noted that moral reform during the Chou dynasty led to protests against human sacrifice.  "This was centuries before Roman law prohibited the sacrifice of human beings among the Druids of western Europe," Graham wrote, implying that Chinese culture had actually advanced earlier than Western culture.[5]  Graham commended the Chinese in Folk Religion for placing "the highest value on life in the world."[6]  Elsewhere, he contrasted the Chinese and Westerners more explicitly with the following observation: "The Chinese have a good sense of humor and enjoy laughing at a good, friendly joke… For this reason I told many more jokes among the Chinese than I do among Occidentals."[7]  While a good sense of humor may not be sufficient to elevate Orientals to the level of Occidentals, this characteristic should not be underestimated, as it was one of many traits that D.C. Graham appreciated and respected in the Chinese people.  A genuine warmth comes through in these and other Graham writings.  D.C. Graham spent 37 years of his life in China and, during this time, appears to have developed a real appreciation for the Chinese people.  In addition to good humor, the same section in Folk Religion attributed to the Chinese characteristics of politeness, gratitude, kindness and reciprocity.

 

David Crockett Graham expressed a similarly positive attitude toward China's culture, and this mindset had its roots in the intellectual milieu of Protestant missions in the early twentieth century.  "China has produced one of the world's greatest cultures, in some respects the greatest," Graham asserted toward the end of his career.  "It has produced men of outstanding ability and character.  It has had several of the world's greatest historians, poets, philosophers, and artists."[8]  This broad-minded sensibility, accepting and even lauding a foreign culture, resulted from the growth of liberalism's influence in the Christian community.  Challenging traditional notions within Protestantism, liberalism countered the belief in human depravity with enthusiasm for humanity's potential and a questioning of Christianity's monopoly on spiritual truth.  "The Western discovery of the philosophically appealing 'higher religions' of the Orient, especially Hinduism and Buddhism, threatened to unsettle traditional smug assumptions of the superiority and finality of Christianity," Lian Xi wrote.[9]  David Crockett Graham received his education during the heyday of liberal Protestantism, graduating from Colgate Seminary in 1911.  Indeed, Graham studied at the same seminary that graduated Harry Emerson Fosdick, a leading voice for liberalism who became "the most influential Protestant preacher in America" by the 1930s.[10]  Colgate professor William Newton Clarke suggested in 1900 that Darwinian theory may indicate an intrinsic value in Chinese civilization, since the culture had survived and persisted for thousands of years. Fosdick entered Colgate a few years before D.C. Graham and studied under Clarke, meaning that Graham likely encountered the liberal views of Clarke and other faculty members during his education.[11]

 

In any case, David Crockett Graham studied theology in an environment that sanctioned liberalism and encouraged openness to the potential value of other cultures, predisposing him toward a tolerant view of China's civilization.  The influence of liberalism shows in Graham's work.  While more conservative missionaries may have rejected the foreign cultures they sought to transform, D.C. Graham readily embraced certain parts of Chinese culture.  His sensibilities separated the "wheat from the chaff," so to speak; the wheat was China's high Confucian culture, the civilization propagated by the educated elite, while the chaff was the folk culture of the "unsophisticated people" who made up the majority of China's population.[12]  In his published works he consistently distinguished China's "great religions" - Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, "Mohammedanism," and Christianity - from the "lesser religions," under which heading he grouped the religions of minority nationalities like the Lolos and Tibetans; various Chinese cults; and "the popular or folk religion of southwest China."[13]  The latter he posited as a generalized system of beliefs and superstitions common among most Chinese, nameless and "unorganized."[14]  He argued that Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have affected the popular religion, but that the popular religion also influenced the major, organized religions in considerable ways.  "The religion of the common people, called by some animism, has been referred to as the real religion of China," Graham wrote.[15]  Interestingly, Graham had little respect for the "real religion of China," and held a measured respect for the "great" traditions, especially Confucianism.

 

D.C. Graham's evaluations and representations of these religious traditions were, above all, linked to notions of progress.  He was often very explicit in singling out the good and bad characteristics of different religions, going so far as to close Folk Religion in Southwest China with a bulleted list of the strengths and weaknesses of each "great religion," including Christianity.  In the case of Islam, for instance, Graham concluded his inventory with the observation, "There is no doubt that Mohammedanism is a strong religion, and will continue for centuries.  Its ultimate usefulness to mankind depends upon its ability to reform and to improve."[16]  For a religion to be legitimate, it had to prove its "usefulness" to mankind.  Graham explained this concept of utility in the closing words of Folk Religion:

 

I also believe that as the Chinese and all the human race become more and more enlightened, those religions that take advantage of and exploit the ignorance and superstitions will gradually be abandoned, and that the religions that become the strongest will be those that contribute the most to ennoble and enrich the lives of individuals, the family, society, and the world.

 

In this spirit, he commended Islam for "its treatment of all races as equal"[17] and Christianity for "its high esteem of women."[18]  Conversely, Graham held out criticism for those religions that indulged in superstition and magic, particularly Buddhism and Taoism; he saw these traditions as has having "degenerated" into primitive practices from their original high ideals.[19] 

 

Oddly, Graham devoted much of a book entitled Folk Religion of Southwest China to the "great religions," while deriding the qualities of the actual folk religion he set out to discuss.  Indeed, ignorance and superstition may have been deplorable in the organized religions, but the religion of the common people - the "real religion of China" - was nothing but ignorance and superstition in Graham's portrayal.  He argued that this common religion "influences and permeates" all the other religions, generally to ill effect.[20]  This perspective reveals a uniquely negative attitude toward the common people themselves, since they were seen as having a taste for superstition.  Graham wrote, "Buddhism appealed to the ordinary Chinese people because of its polytheism, idolatry, and the use of charms, incantations, and magical ceremonies to exorcise demons, heal diseases, and achieve desired ends" -- in other words, all the elements of China's folk religion were incorporated into Buddhism's original philosophy, by popular demand.  Graham did give the common people somewhat more credit, going on to note that these practices became "severe handicaps" as the people became more enlightened and progressive in recent years. [21]  This perspective - critical of primitive superstitions, valuing progressive elements in religious culture - appears to have been common among missionaries of Graham's period.  Margaret Byrne Swain described the attitude of missionary culture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in this way: "Goodness was represented in 'progress, trade, and industrialization, [while] the rural scene overseas tended to be 'wretched' or 'miserable,' at best 'simple'; the 'primitive' was bad and superstition, magic, taboo, nakedness, and other savage customs -- impediments to [good] progress -- were generally described as 'evil'."[22]  Fitting this pattern, Graham denigrated those traditions that involved "primitive" practices, while praising religions that could adapt, change, and serve the progress of humanity.

 

This distinction between high and low cultures corresponded with a class bias in D.C. Graham's thinking, which manifested itself in both his collecting and mission works.  Records of Graham's collecting trips for the Smithsonian suggest that he enjoyed a very comfortable relationship with local elites, while having a much more contentious relationship with the lower classes from which his helpers came.  On expeditions for the Smithsonian, Graham had to enlist numerous coolies to carry specimens, equipment, and provisions, as well as armed escorts to protect against rampant banditry.  Graham was not abusive toward his coolies, and normally took an equal part in their labor, eschewing a sedan chair on nearly all journeys.  However, he did often express frequent disdain for his hired help.  "The stupidity of the coolie probably prevented me from securing a wild goose or a very large gray duck," Graham fumed during his 1928 trip.[23]  He often seemed to view the Chinese poor as having a lesser moral nature.  "Chinese coolies, soldiers, and similar classes of people are experts at cursing," Graham observed.  "It seems almost necessary sometimes.  A coolie or a servant may pay no attention to exhortations or instructions until the other person gets mad and curses him."[24]  He often suspected the coolies of stealing from him,[25] and on at least one trip his armed escorts were former robbers.[26]

 

D.C. Graham's attitude toward his coolies and other helpers vacillated from surprising sensitivity to an inhumane practicality.  Graham demonstrated a degree of empathy for them at times, periodically noting their ailments (sometimes as minor as headaches) in his diary.[27]  "The night before, the collectors were very grumpy and had to be treated with care," Graham wrote during an expedition to Tatsienlu.[28]  However, his collecting diaries also suggest that Graham took greater care with his collecting equipment than he did with employees.  After a particularly treacherous trip down from the village of Shuang Ho Tsang in 1929, Graham wrote in his diary, "I consider myself very fortunate that one or more coolies did not fall down and smash some of the collecting outfit."[29]  The coolies - described as "gaunt and pale with misery" during the trip - could have fallen to their deaths, but Graham's primary concern was for the valuable tools they carried.  When trying to train a new netter during his 1930 expedition, Graham evidenced a less than humanistic attitude toward the Chinese common people.  "I have decided that he [Mo Lin] is too dull," Graham wrote, "and that I had better not try to teach him, but find better material."[30]  While the practice of anthropometrics treated the Chinese as an object to be measured and analyzed, this statement suggests that the Chinese - at least the "raw farmer boys" whom Graham employed - were a component to be crafted, used and possibly discarded.  The statement echoes the phrase "human material," which Edward Said used to describe the attitude of Orientalists toward their Oriental subject matter.  Graham's collecting diaries suggest that he held a somewhat more callous attitude toward the poor, the "unsophisticated" of China.  

 

Graham interacted with higher class Chinese on very different terms, as his diaries bound with instances of luxurious treatment from magistrates, military leaders, and other officials.  For example, wealthy locals appear to have invited Graham to a feast at nearly every town he entered during his collecting trips.[31]  The central government exerted little control during most of Graham's time in China, and town officials were usually forthcoming in helping Graham mitigate the dangers posed by travel in the countryside.  "In West China brigands are apt to appear in almost any place at almost any time," Graham wrote.  "For that reason it is necessary, when using the Smithsonian collecting outfit, to have escorts appointed by the government officials all the time."[32]  At no point in the available diaries does Graham mention an instance in which officials refused to arrange an escort for him. 

 

To some extent, this friendly relationship was based on material exchange, as Graham generally returned favors with gifts.  "I simply could not make this trip into Ningyuenfu if I did not have pull enough with the military officials to get an adequate escort," Graham wrote in July 1928.  "To keep this pull I will have to give presents, which are a necessary part of the collecting expenses."[33]  Local elites may have extended the ubiquitous dinner invitations in anticipation of some kind of reward from Graham.  A summer 1929 collecting trip to Mupin suggests how the material generosity of Western visitors influenced the interaction between visitors and natives.  Theodore and Kermit Roosevelt - the American explorers who famously captured the panda bear in 1929 - had been through the region the preceding Spring, and Graham learned from the local Chinese that the Roosevelts "were exceedingly liberal with money."[34]  Their largesse appears to have created a pleasant atmosphere for Graham, who noted that the Roosevelt brothers had made a good impression in the community.[35]  The people told Graham extraordinary stories of the Roosevelts' prowess, perhaps thinking to impress this new traveler and eventually receive the same generosity from him.  "The people here are very friendly," Graham observed, "so much that it makes a burden and interferes to some extent in collecting."[36]  However, the diaries also indicate that local leaders extended courtesy to Graham whether or not they got precisely what they wanted from him.  "The local General Yang has called on me this afternoon, and he gave me a leg of bacon," Graham wrote.  "He did covet the Newton high-power rifle, but of course he did not get it.  He is quite friendly."[37]  In any case, Graham's cordial and friendly rapport with local elites emerged at least partly from a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

However, David Crockett Graham enjoyed a friendly relationship with Chinese elites not just because of material exchange, as his mission work suggests a genuine preference for some Chinese over others.  As a church leader, Graham continually sought after higher class converts, employing a variety of methods to elicit middle and upper class support for Christianity.  When Graham first arrived at his post in Suifu in 1911, he found that the local Christian community had only a highly dilapidated church available for use.  Graham repeatedly beseeched his mission's Foreign Secretary, Joseph Franklin, over the following years for funds to build a new church.  "The fact is that we must get that church building in some way," Graham insisted.  "Only coolies would feel at home in it as it is."[38]  The church was built the following year, and Graham's enthusiasm showed.  "Never before have the middle and upper-class men been so willing to enroll as enquirers," he observed in a 1915 report.[39]  The following year Graham started his Young Men's Institute in Chengdu, which offered a small museum, game room and other amenities in hopes of attracting higher class young men to Christianity.[40]  Perhaps he saw the "unsophisticated" people who followed China's folk religion as less apt or prepared to receive Christianity.  Indeed, Graham may have seen the more educated upper classes, who were already acquainted with a system of "high moral ideals," as more capable of learning a new, superior system like the Christian religion.  Graham may also have seen the upper classes as more valuable converts, since their social status might elevate the foreign religion in public opinion.  The American Baptist Foreign Mission Society's 1920 entry on Graham seems to support this supposition, pointing out that the Young Men's Institute was "gradually interesting influential young men in the Christian religion."[41]

 

The political position occupied by D.C. Graham and his colleagues in China had its roots in their perspective on Chinese culture and society.  As we have seen, the ideal of "progress" provided the basis for his assessment of different religious traditions and cultural practices; in his ethnological works, Graham represented religions that could reform and better humanity positively, while taking a far more critical and judgmental tone toward "primitive" or "backward" folk traditions.  In his view, the Chinese had developed a great civilization with many admirable and moral characteristics, which was mostly the province of the educated few.  This respectable tradition was not as ideal as Christianity and other aspects of Western culture, but it was comparable.  Chinese civilization only needed revisions from the West - the Gospel, for instance, or scientific rationalism - in order to be perfected.  Graham saw the twentieth century as the time when these changes could finally come about.  "Primitive ideas and types of thought were very prevalent in the past among the uneducated and unsophisticated Chinese," Graham wrote.  "A new age of enlightenment is now dawning, when primitive customs and types of religion will no longer be acceptable to the people."[42]  China's growing embrace of Western civilization could solve these problems.  A quotation from Theodore Roosevelt - with whom Graham competed (unsuccessfully) to bring the first live panda to the West - neatly articulates this perspective: &quuot;China has suffered greatly from intellectual inbreeding," Roosevelt wrote.  "Now that she is able to marry her thoughts to those of other peoples there should be a great change."[43]  In a sense, David Crockett Graham's life and work in China proposed such a "marriage."

 

This perspective at least partly formed a political alignment with those forces that sought to westernize China, or, at least, groups that might be seen as introducing Western civilization.  It is little wonder, then, that Graham and his colleagues tended to favor the Guomindang or Nationalist Party.  Graham applauded the progressive reforms that the Nationalist Government attempted to put in place, such as ending the practice of foot-binding. "Mr. Graham spoke of the marvelous changes in the lives of women, formerly of subjection, now more of equality, and of the doing away of the horrible practice of foot binding," an observer at a missionary meeting wrote.[44]  Missionaries enthusiastically greeted these efforts, associating progressive policy in China with the Nationalists.  Graham also appreciated the Nationalists' 1928 ban on opium planting and smoking, although he observed that the policies were plainly not enforced.  "Today and yesterday we passed by and through field after field of growing opium, of which much more is being planted than last year," Graham wrote in 1929.  He mostly attributed this failure to the local government in Sichuan, which Graham said actually penalized farmers for not planting opium.[45]

 

Other factors shaped this political alignment, including class and religious considerations.  The Guomindang found its greatest support among the upper classes that D.C. Graham so actively courted for conversion.  Moreover, it did not hurt that Chiang Kai-shek converted to Christianity, instantly endearing himself to many Westerners in China, especially missionaries.  (For its part, the West China Border Research Society made the Generalissimo and his wife "honorary members" in 1935.)[46]  As alternatives went, the Communist movement offered little to the mission community.  One of the earliest mentions of Communism in Graham's writings appears in a 1928 collecting journal, in which Graham described a student demonstration.  "The radical or communistic students are putting up nasty anti-Christian placards in Yachow," he observed, "calling Chinese Christians foreign slaves, the walking dogs of foreign devils, etc."  Taking both an anti-foreign and anti-Christian stance, Chinese Communists posed a critical threat to the security of Western missionaries like Graham.  The Graham family did not return to Sichuan during their third term of service, between 1927 and 1930, out of fear of "the anti-Christian movement fostered by Communists."[47]  During this period, David Crockett Graham himself stayed on in Suifu, serving initially as the only foreign missionary there.  Additionally, the Communists tended to vilify the Confucian traditions that Graham actually appreciated and admired, providing another point of contention.  "They [Communists] challenged practically everything that was old and asserted that communism had something better," Graham wrote in 1961.  "One saying was 'Society is all bad.  We will destroy it and build a new society.'"  Given this conflict of visions, one may be little surprised that D.C. Graham and his peers tended to support the Nationalists over the Communists.

 

Although they favored cultural change - in the form of westernization and Christianity - Graham and his peers actually occupied a conservative place in Chinese life, culturally as well as politically.  Graham entered China in the midst of the Revolution of 1911, which toppled the Qing dynasty, and left shortly before the Communist Revolution of 1949 took hold.  The period in between was marked by a series of failed regimes, warlordism, and rigorous questioning of Chinese tradition among many Chinese, particularly intellectuals.  Jonathan Spence described this time as "a period of political insecurity and unparalleled intellectual self-scrutiny and exploration," as Chinese tried to discern flaws in their civilization and sought new ideas to save China from ruin.[48]  Historians have generally called this phenomenon the May Fourth Movement.  The name comes from demonstrations that Beijing college students staged on May 4, 1919 to protest the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which infuriated many Chinese by handing Germany's rights in Shandong province over to Japan. 

 

The tumultuous context of revolutionary China turned the traditional dynamic between missionaries and the missionized culture on its head, as many Chinese came to criticize their culture more thoroughly than missionaries did.  Missionaries normally occupied an iconoclastic position in relation to a foreign culture, but the social and political environment of China during Graham's tenure actually situated some missionaries in the role of defending Chinese culture.  Many Chinese, especially the young, were questioning and rejecting much of Chinese tradition, so Graham's appreciation for Confucian ideals set him in tension with them.  Chinese leaders undertook aggressive action to undermine traditional religion, as in the "anti-superstition" drives of the 1920s, which denounced religion as "obsolete" and subjected religious properties to state control.[49]  The Nationalist Party, especially prior to Chiang Kai-Shek's leadership, led many of these assaults, backing groups such as the Anti-Religious Federation and the Great Federation of Anti-Religionists.  In this spirit, Nationalist founder Sun Yat-Sen declaimed, "Religious authority is an obstacle to the development of a people and social progress."[50] 

 

This environment, hostile as it was to religious sentiment and authority, placed D.C. Graham and his colleagues in a difficult position.  They advocated social progress and westernization, like Sun, but valued religion; this included elements of Chinese spirituality in the case of Graham and other like-minded missionaries.  Traditional values, such as filial piety, were often seen as valuable and useful by missionaries.  Take, for instance, A.J. Brace's article in The Journal of the West China Border Research Society, in which Brace and Chinese Christian leaders sought to preserve the notion of filial piety (albeit separating it from "ancestor worship").  D.C. Graham came to the defense of filial piety on many occasions.  For instance, a Bishop Soong approached in Graham in the 1940s, to commend him for his work in promoting this Confucian value.  (Soong, for his part, had been blasted by Chinese Christians as a "Confucian bishop" for his own views in support of filial piety.)[51]  "I want to thank you for that article," Soong said, referring to a piece Graham published in Christian Quarterly.  "You see some good in filial piety, but there are some Chinese who see no good in it."[52]

 



[1] Graham, Folk Religion, p. 29

[2] Beidelman, Colonial Evangelism, p. 17

[3] Morse, "Presidential Address," p. iii

[4] Graham, Folk Religion, p. 29

[5] Ibid., p. 47

[6] Ibid., p. 27

[7] Ibid., p. 31

[8] Ibid., p. v

[9] Lian, The Conversion of Missionaries, p. 139

[10] Ibid., p. 139

[11] Ibid., p. 140

[12] David C. Graham, "Tree Gods in Szechuan Province," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 8 (1936): p. 59

[13] Graham, Folk Religion, p. vii

[14] Ibid., p. 219

[15] Ibid., p. v

[16] Ibid., p. 223

[17] Ibid., p. 223

[18] Ibid., p. 225

[19] Ibid., p. 220

[20] Ibid., p. 219

[21] Ibid., p. 222

[22] Swain, "Pere Vial and the Gni-P'a," p. 176

[23] David C. Graham, “Diary Five,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 1, Folder 7, p. 4

[24] Graham, “Diary Four,” p. 23

[25] Graham, “Diary Seven,” p. 12

[26] Ibid., p. 3

[27] Ibid., p. 5

[28] David C. Graham, “Diary Ten,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 2, Folder 2, p. 8

[29] Graham, “Diary Seven,” p. 5

[30] Graham, “Diary Eight,” p. 38

[31] Graham “Diary Four,” p. 12

[32] Ibid., p. 2

[33] Ibid., p. 7

[34] Graham, “Diary Seven,” p. 16

[35] Ibid., p. 7

[36] Ibid., p. 6

[37] Graham, “Diary Four,” p. 19

[38] David C. Graham, to Joseph Franklin, 28 July 1914, David C. Graham Official Correspondence, 1911-1960.  Board of International Ministries, Archival Collection of American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, PA

[39] David C. Graham, "Suifu Evangelistic Report," David C. Graham Missionary Register and Biographical File, Board of International Ministries (BIM), American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, PA

[40] American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, "Information Desired for Our Records," p. 1

[41] American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, "Rev. D.C. Graham," David C. Graham Missionary Register and Biographical File, Board of International Ministries (BIM), American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, PA

[42] Graham, Folk Religion, p. 215

[43] Theodore Roosevelt and Kermit Roosevelt, Trailing the Giant Panda (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 51

[44] American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, "Missionary Meeting, Wakefield, Mass. Nov. 1931"

[45] Graham, “Diary Eight,” p. 27

[46] David C. Graham, "List of Members," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 10 (1938): p. 253

[47] American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, "A Brief Summary of the Work of Dr. and Mrs. David C. Graham in China," David C. Graham Missionary Register and Biographical File, Board of International Ministries (BIM), American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, PA

[48] Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990),  p. 267

[49] Prasenjit Duara, "Knowledge and Power in the Discourse of Modernity: Campaigns Against Popular Religion in Early Twentieth-Century China," Journal of Asian Studies 50 (Feb., 1991) p. 79

[50] Duara, "Knowledge and Power in the Discourse of Modernity," p. 78

[51] Graham, Folk Religion, p. 216

[52] Ibid., p. 217