In seeking a definition of that phrase, European analogies will scarcely help us. The word "Pan-Germanism" usually implies some common action or interest among all those who speak the German language, and suggests some kind of racial bond or sense of kindred. The word "Pan-Slavism" appears to mean common action or interest among all who speak the Slav tongues, and similarly suggests some ethnological bond of kinship. Obviously Pan-Americanism must mean something quite different, for the American differs from his nearest southern neighbour, the Mexican, more widely than the Norwegian differs from the Greek. Moreover, "Pan-American" is a term of recent origin and still somewhat fluid in its application. It has sometimes been used merely as the equivalent of "European" or "Asiatic"; for the word "American" commonly bears a national sense and there is no convenient and accepted term covering the two Americas. For example, Mr Taft in his Presidential message of 1909 spoke of "our Pan-American policy" much as a British Prime Minister might speak of "our European policy."
Thus, the obvious application of the term is geographical. Yet Americans of authority are fully aware of the need of reservation in this geographical application. In 1909, the Director of the Pan-American Union pointed out, with some mortification, that on the occasion of the Pan-American Congress at Buenos Aires, most of the delegates from the north found that the easiest route from the chief city of North America to the chief city of South America lay through Europe. And an eminent American economist[6] has lately uttered a warning against geographical misapprehensions, explaining that, whereas the Panamá Canal makes the west coast of South America an extension of the east coast of the United States, nevertheless the bulk of the South American population lives upon the Atlantic coast and prefers its traditional, customary and natural intercourse with Europe.
But in considering the meaning of an incipient and growing force, it would be a mistake to dwell on possible limitations and difficulties; and it would be pedantic and unpractical to demand precise consistency or exact definition. We are rather concerned with aspirations, tendencies and formative ideas. Indeed, it might fairly be argued that these limitations, which are fully realised and avowed in North America, are no argument against the Pan-American movement, but rather an argument in support of it, as being a prudent and wholesome effort to overcome existing obstacles and promote a better understanding between neighbours.