20 Chapter 2laurels in a war with a more suitable opponent, in another nearby theatre of
military action, such as [is] presented by our Pacific coast.”^59 However, Putiata
predicted that China, having learned from its ignoble defeat, would (with a
little German tutelage) marshal its resources better; and it was pos si ble that,
with its million- man army it would surpass Japan and become a dangerous
force— that is, a “yellow peril”—in the region.^60 Therefore, the term “yellow
peril” referred equally to China (irredentism) and to Japan (expansionism)
until the Russo- Japanese War.
Chinese and Korean labor was plentiful and inexpensive, but “What
was the quality of their work vis- à- is Rus v s ians?” Wirt Gerrare provided an
example: the roads of Vladivostok (ca. 1904). He noted that the original
work was done by Rus sians; but after only one year, all the roads needed to
be repaved. This time they hired the Chinese. The wharf was also built by
Rus s ians and experienced the same prob lems after one year. Again, they
hired Chinese to replace the Russian- built wharf, and the work done by the
former was still standing.^61 Chinese carpenters were also found to be supe-
rior to Rus sians in building Harbin’s main cathedral. They were even found
to be superior in the wood- carving style of Siberian rez’ ba.^62 V. K. Arsenev,
the RFE’s most eminent ethnographer, gave an explanation for why the
Rus sian was surpassed by the Chinese. His description of the work compe-
tition between the two consisted of very strong racial ste reo types, faulty
logic, and in the end, a request for quotas on yellow labor. Arsenev begins:
“If we set up a work competition, after one or two days the Rus sian worker
will surpass the Chinese. First, [the Rus sian is] harderworking, and more
energetic. Unfortunately, the Rus sian worker stops after a short time. He
quickly tends to become lazy and wanders from his work.” Arsenev arrived
at his solution, going on to state: “So we need to come to the aid of the Rus-
sian peasant (muzhik). I suppose that in all the businesses and industries in
the region, we should adopt a standardized percent for the Rus sian worker
and lower it for the Chinese. This quota will allow the government to force
out Chinese labor.”^63 The Rus sian worker as described would not have been
more industrious than the Chinese laborer. Arsenev’s pronouncement appears
to have been biased. It rationalized and dismissed Chinese industriousness
based on the fact that the Rus sian did not excel in “boring, tedious, or repeti-
tive work.” The Rus sian seemed predetermined to be the announced winner.
This competition was also one example of business and resources being seen
as a battle between nationalities as opposed to competition between firms
and individuals.
Not only Arsenev, but Esper Ukhtomskii, who was Tsar Nicholas II’s
adviser, believed that East Asian successes were due to their conspiratorial
nature and work practices.^64 Arsenev gave an example of how a Chinese